Exactly, and that’s kind of the problem. The goalposts that some people set this stuff at are so high that you’re basically asking it to just pull knowledge out of a vacuum, equivalent to performing the Forbidden Experiment in the hopes of the subject spontaneously developing their own language for no apparent reason(then declaring the child no sentient when it fails).

It’s pretty clear that at this moment we’re a decent ways away from proper AGI that is able to act on its own “volition” without very direct prompting or to discover scientific processes on it’s own, but I also don’t think anyone has adequately defined where the line actually is in terms of when the input is sufficiently negligible as to make the novel or unexpected output a sign of emergent intelligence rather than just a fluke of the programming.

Honestly I don’t know that we actually even can agree on the answer to that question, especially if we’re bringing relevant papers like Bargh & Chartrand 1999 into the discussion, and I suspect as things develop the moment people decide there’s a ghost in the machine will ultimately boil down to a gut level “I know it when I see it” reaction rather than any particular hard-figure. And some people will simply never reach that point, while there are probably a handful right now who already have.