Gary Marcus argues in Nature that AI evaluations mistake statistical approximation for genuine intelligence

The Pope is making exactly our point. LLMs “may imitate or even simulate, but they do not understand.” This is the core epistemic fault line. Most AI evaluation is still based on one assumption: if a system statistically approximates human behaviour, then it is close to human intelligence. But approximation is not intelligence. Simulation is not understanding. LLMs can produce the right answer without knowing why it is right. They can simulate empathy without feeling. They can imitate judgment without responsibility. They can generate coherent explanations without having a world to which those explanations are accountable. Stop confusing behavioural similarity with cognitive equivalence. Human understanding is embodied, affective, relational, motivational, and normative. It is not just the production of plausible text. * Full paper in the first reply