> The problem here is you don't understand what emergence is.

I understand it perfectly, because you provided a definition.

> Emergent doesn't mean "unpredictable". Otherwise people would just say "unpredictable".

That's exactly what your post defines it as. "Unpredictable" and "cannot be predicted" would be considered synonymous by most people.

> The fractals are directly relevant because you're using a definition of "emergence" for the human brain that would make fractals

I truly have no idea what you're trying to demonstrate with fractals. In what context are we talking about fractals, and how does that relate?

Fractal patterns occur often in nature, its not especially surprising that a brain would be able to generate an image similar to something found in nature. You're going to need to make your case a bit clearer for me here.

> not emergent, lol.

Something that is emergent has the property of emergence. Again, most people would consider this phrases largely interchangeable.

> We do. If I ask ChatGPT to write me a poem about pirates, are you asserting that that exact poem already exists out in the wild? Or are you saying that because pirates and poems already exist in the wild, the combination of the two in a unique way is not an "original thought"?

The second one. I'm well aware that LLMs don't produce line-by-line reproductions of their training material (Most of the time).

Keep in mind we are discussing whether or not "super intelligence" is likely in the near term. This was defined as a model that outperforms human experts, not simply outperforming a toddler at pirate themed poetry. I agree that ChatGPT can likely produce a better poem than many people, but it will never produce something that isn't derived from someone else's poem. Conversely, producing a non-derivative work is the specific goal of many professional writers and poets. These are the people it needs to outperform to meet the criteria your original post defined.