However: can the argument be sustained at all, or for how long, that AI "merely" produces a perfect symptomatology of intelligence, i.e. simulates intelligence, but is not "really" intelligent? What can the ominous residue of human intelligence be? In many areas it no longer exists; rearguard actions fail miserably. What more does one want from a lawyer, for example, if one can obtain at least the same, if not better, legal information and expertise quickly, conveniently and cheaply from an AI that operates with such a large corpus of legally relevant texts that the lawyer is unlikely to have it in view so quickly? Is it an added value of the human lawyer if he offers relationship work, as it were, empathy, social competence, negotiating skill, charisma? As a rule this is not what is asked for in a legal service. And what use is grand theory here, one might ask, which insists on the difference between human and artificial, for example by pointing out that AI – viewed linguistically, say with Noam Chomsky – actually only stages a syntactically halfway valid façade of language (and even that only halfway, because it does not work with rule knowledge in the manner of generative grammar but only with probabilities of patterns, vectors and layers in the manner of generative AI), that there is no semantics (AI does not care what the words and sentences mean) and no pragmatics (AI does not care in which context language is used)? Yes, all these reservations carry great theoretical weight and must not be suppressed. But what does it count if human beings are satisfied with AI, if in reality they even proactively compensate, without knowing it, for what AI lacks – that is, fill the semantic vacuum by conferring meaning on the AI output, and also fill the pragmatic vacuum by gratefully granting the AI output relevance and valence in the scenarios of their interests and uses – and, last but not least, if the quality of the performance is right (and that is largely the case), so that the quality, sense and hype of AI use are gloriously confirmed? If all this – semantically meaning, pragmatically sense – is a matter of indifference to AI, then surely this also means: however profound the effects of AI may be (positive on a large scale, but at certain points also a possible downfall of humanity), it must not be forgotten that human intelligence develops the technical machine of so-called artificial intelligence and breathes life into this machine through attribution, projection and transference (in the depth-psychological sense). Human intelligence quite creatively compensates for the deficits in principle of artificial intelligence (concerning the vacuum of sense and so on) by using it as intelligence, albeit as artificial intelligence. Why does one do this? But back to the Turing test.