> What made you think that is measurable and if it is then we can build something like that ever?

What makes you think it isn't, and that we can't? The Turing test was proposed 75 years ago, and we have many cognitive tests today which current gen AI also passes. So we clearly have ways of measuring intelligence by whatever criteria we deem important. Even if those measurements are flawed, and we can agree that current AI systems don't truly understand anything but are just regurgitation machines, this doesn't matter for practical purposes. The appearance of intelligence can be as useful as actual intelligence in many situations. Humans know this well.

Yes, I read the article. There's nothing novel about saying that current ML tech is bad at outliers, and showcasing hallucinations. We can argue about whether the current approaches will lead to AGI or not, but that is beside the point I was making originally, which you keep ignoring.

Again, the point is: if we can build AI that mimics biological intelligence it won't matter that it's not biological. And a sidenote of: even if we're not 100% there, it can still be very useful.

Again, the point is: you can not build AI that mimics biological intelligence because you do not even have any idea what biological intelligence even is. Once again, what's Picasso's velocity of painting?