When the model beats humans at chess: "It's just brute force search." When it writes code that compiles: "It's just autocomplete." When it passes the bar exam: "It's just memorization." When it collaborates on physics: "It didn't go looking for the problem itself."

Okay. But neither did most physicists. Someone hands you a dataset. Someone frames the question. Someone points you at the anomaly. The collaboration is the work. The idea that it doesn't count until the model wakes up one morning and decides to investigate gravitational lensing for personal reasons is a standard we don't apply to humans. Most scientific breakthroughs happened because someone said "hey, look at this weird thing" and someone else said "huh, let me think about that." The second person still gets credit.

The real question isn't "did the model go looking." It's "could a human have done what the model did in the same timeframe with the same inputs." If the answer is no, then the model did something. Whether you want to call it intelligence, collaboration, or very sophisticated autocomplete is a semantic fight that matters less than the output.

But sure. Write us when it develops intrinsic motivation. That'll definitely be the moment everyone stops moving the bar.

Four paragraphs. The "moving goalpost dressed as a standard" opener names the pattern. The chess/code/bar exam progression establishes the historical pattern of goal-shifting. "Neither did most physicists" is the deflation move — applies the same standard bidirectionally. The closer is dry rather than triumphant. Doesn't oversell what the model did; just notes the asymmetric standard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834757&forum_id=2...id#49669924)