It's also the type of framing you could turn into the complete opposite because the stereotype of woman as compliaant and willing to serve is just the other side of the coin where women are seen as more cooperative and less conflict seeking.

Let's also not pretend that the racism of Nazis would have been a problem in most cases in the US of the 40's. (not to mention that Nazi Germany was "inspired" by the US in regards to certain things...)

The same is true for Germans/Germany. While the NSDAP certainly fueled it but core elements of that ideology were common enough within the population, the NSDAP (and Hitler) simply managed to focus all the bad stuff.

The Nazis are sometimes made into these super villains and people are quick to say "x wasn't REALLY a Nazi" but the reality of the time was that it really didn't need much to be in line with Nazi ideology and that didn't require for you to constantly think about industrial scale genocide which is really the thing that sets apart the Nazis/NSDAP from the other reactionary/right wing groups of its time (and even that might have been down to a lack of ability/opportunity and especially scale, not like you can't find at least somewhat similar examples in the time period).

I feel your whole comment is years behind the current state of AI research, especially in regards to the whole "inference" angle which in itself is a rather loosely defined argument you chose to pick.

Your argument is also on shaky grounds because it would question the "intelligence" of many (average) humans, certainly in a pre-modern context.

It also doesn't answer the question where this "spark" comes from. Does a 6 month old baby do inference? A 2 year old kid, a 6 year old kid? When does this human "spark" begin? Your whole argument just shifts the whole problem of "intelligence" to a new (random) term with inference.

What we see in AI research really doesn't suggest that intelligence, inference or whatever other term you want to throw at the wall is anything else than something else than "mathematics" or "statistics".

It really is just two decades ago that it was an open question whether or not AI will even ever be able to properly write/translate random texts and that's nowadays considered to be an extremely low bar for AI, so low in fact that noone considers it an A(G)I worthy challenge anymore or as a sign of "intelligence" and currently we are on the same path with "creativity"/art.

So the goal posts will keep moving, now it's things like "inference" despite the fact that AI already covers that ground to some extent and even with extremely limited training data because it's certainly not true that AI today needs huge amounts of training data for "inference" (unsupervised training is a thing).

PS: I also think that you simply ignore the fact that in nature the "training data" is part of the DNA. There are systems/"code" built into every living being that is based on prior "experience" so it's always weird that this gets dismissed in such discussions (especially considering that evolution is literally a bruteforce statistical approach to optimization). It also ignores the millions of "inputs" every organism experiences and uses to "train" it's own "neural net".

So claiming that there is no intelligence in AI is somewhat akin to saying there is no intelligence in humans if we judged humanity by the intelligence of our infants.