If you don't understand how your attempt to apply my colored shape analogy to a human brain is nonsensical I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you. I had a point, I made it, and apparently it escaped you.
> We also know how they work, they are token predicters. That is all they are and all they can do
Ah there it is, you've betrayed a deep lack of understanding in all relevant disciplines (neuroscience, cognition, information theory) required to even appreciate the many errors you've made here.
You sure understand the subject matter and have nothing possibly to learn. Enjoy.
We know as a hard fact that LLMs do not understand anything. They have no capacity to "understand". The constant, intractible failure modes that they continuously exhibit are clear byproducts of this fact. By continuing to cling to the absurd idea that there is more going on than token prediction you make yourself look like the people who kept insisting there was more going on with past generation chat bots even after being shown the source code.
I have understood all along why you attempt to extend my colored shape example to the brain, but your basis for this is complete nonsense. Because a) we do not have the actual understanding of the brain to do this and b) it's competely beside the point, becuase we know that minds do arise from the brain. My whole point is an LLM is an illusion of a mind which is effective because it outputs words, which we are so hard wired to associate with other minds, expecially when they seem to "make sense" to us. If instead of words you use something nonsensical like colored shapes with no underlying meaning, this illusion of the mind goes away and you can see an LLM for whst it is.
Go ahead and cite your sources. For every study claiming that LLMs lack these qualities, there are others that support and reinforce the connectionist model of how knowledge is encoded, with parallels to the human brain. So... it's inconclusive. It's bizarre why you so strongly insist otherwise when it's clear you are not informed.
> The point of my colored shape example is that it is an illusion that there is anything resembling a mind inside an LLM
And my example with subjecting a human brain through your procedure is to illustrate what a garbage experiment design it is. You wouldn't be able to tell there's a mind inside either. Both LLM and human brain mind would be confused. Both would "continue working" in the same way, trying to interpret meaning from meaningless stimulation.
So you don't have a point to make, got it.