I literally never just start writing and then just keep adding words.
But it clearly is not self-evident that intelligence is or isn’t prediction.
Nothing is self-evident in a field we know so very little about. That’s my main objection, we should be humble and curious, not dogmatic.
Or even when you talk in a foreign language you're semi-competent with.
For example, let's say you're planning to approach your boss about receiving a raise, the contents of your speech will be driven by a personal theory of mind regarding how your boss perceives you, your own memory of who you are and how you like to be perceived, the cadence and tenor of speech you imagine your boss is receptive to, information contextually relevant to the purpose of the speech like your proven history of success within the organization, as well as a hundred other variables driven by physiological factors, culture, social habituation and more.
"Predict the next word" just doesn't describe intelligent speech in any meaningful way.
Defining intelligence is fundamental philosophical problem, a discussion that's thousands of years old in the making. To call something in this field self-evident is either ignorance or self denial.
So you’re thinking of a concept, you can picture it and it’s impact on your environment, but can’t quite remember the word for it.
Of course, my anecdote is just as valid as yours. My point is we have no freaking idea what’s going on and shouldn’t jump to conclusions.
Why is predicting the next word proof of intelligent speech?
The grandparent said it’s self-evident that humans do not simply predict the next word. I asked for evidence of that self-evidence.
Edit: also when programming, I form mental structures and code them without verbalizing them, same with maths or when drawing or making music. A thought is maybe a prediction, but language seems not to be the abstraction it’s operated on.
