Yeah, these kinds of discussions always devolve purely into debates about what's the proper definition of words. Especially on HN where everyone has their "Pedantic Knob" dialed up to 11.

I understand your point. I apologise, if I am coming across pendantic.

My point is computers already follow algorithms, and algorithms contain reasoning; but the computers are not reasoning themselves. At least, not yet!

You're not being pedantic at all. It's a crucial distinction that people try to wave away in favor of hype. Especially since we are so vulnerable to anthropomorphizing.

You weren't being pedantic yourself. My point is that this discussion is ultimately about the definition of words, and that all by itself, makes the discussion meaningless.

I think a "granule" of "reasoning" happens at each inference, and you think there is no reasoning in a single inference. To discuss it further would be a game of whose definition of any given word is correct.