Scott Aaronson's description of the result made it out to be more subtle. If I understood it properly, it might be more like the kid shooting 20 arrows, which all form a particular pattern around a point that the kid can't choose or control at all. Now a regular archer can readily choose a particular point, in a way that the kid can't, but can't produce the sort of pattern that the kid does with nearly as much accuracy and nearly as little effort.
Or to make a less specific analogy, there is something about the kid's archery that regular archers can't replicate with their archery skills, but it's not really something that anyone would traditionally have described as "skilled archery". Then Aaronson and Kalai disagree about whether or not this unusual feat that's not very easy to relate conceptually to the ability to hit targets is a sign that the kid is plausibly going to be able to achieve traditional archery skill in the future.
> Or to make a less specific analogy, there is something about the kid's archery that regular archers can't replicate with their archery skills, but it's not really something that anyone would traditionally have described as "skilled archery".
Or to make a less specific analogy, there is something about the kid's archery that regular archers can't replicate with their archery skills, but it's not really something that anyone would traditionally have described as "skilled archery". Then Aaronson and Kalai disagree about whether or not this unusual feat that's not very easy to relate conceptually to the ability to hit targets is a sign that the kid is plausibly going to be able to achieve traditional archery skill in the future.
Is that fair?