This argument gets trotted out frequently here when it comes to LLM discussions and it strikes me as absurd specifically because all of us, as humans, from the very dumbest to the brilliant, have inner lives of self-directed reasoning. We individually know that we have these because we feel them within ourselves and a great body of evidence indicates that they exist and drive our conduct.
LLMs can simulate discourse and certain activities that look similar, but by definition of their design, no evidence at all exists that they possess the same inner reasoning as a human.
Why does someone need to explain to another human that no, we are not just neurons sampling impulses or algorithms pattern-matching tokens together?
It's self evident that something more occurs. It's tedious to keep seeing such reductionist nonsense from people who should be more intelligent than to argue it.
LLMs can simulate discourse and certain activities that look similar, but by definition of their design, no evidence at all exists that they possess the same inner reasoning as a human.
Why does someone need to explain to another human that no, we are not just neurons sampling impulses or algorithms pattern-matching tokens together?
It's self evident that something more occurs. It's tedious to keep seeing such reductionist nonsense from people who should be more intelligent than to argue it.