LLM truthers keep trying different ways of saying "But how do we KNOW that using statistical regression to create a string of tokens that resemble an answer to a prompt is not the same thing as actual thought, though?"
And the answer is always: because it isn't.
There's a lot we don't know about human cognition and the stuff we do know is more complicated than how our own cognitive processes appear to us.
Like, it does involve predictive processes and some of it is essentially random. The same person can come to a different conclusion at different times.
John Searle: In my paper I presented the Chinese Room as a refutation of computer intelligence
Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Chinese Room from the classic philosophy-of-science paper, Don’t Bother Trying To Create The Chinese Room
when a LLM can do wordplay, then i’ll be impressed.
