[YeGoblynQueenne]

If it's so easy to see what's up with what I wrote above, then it should be pretty easy to say what's up with it. You've already written 87 words to dismiss it, but not a single word to say why you dismiss it.

I think that's because you have no idea how to explain why something is, or isn't understanding, or reasoning.

In your comment above you accuse people of not being able to tell you clearly why GPT-4 is not reasoning or understanding, but you, yourself, can't even say clearly why copy/paste isn't. You have no clue how to do that. If you can't even say why something isn't reasoning, or understanding, then how can you say that something is? Do you even know what you're talking about, when you're talking about "reasoning" and "understanding"?

[tanseydavid]

>> I don't understand your derision. Where is the "straw man"?

I find it very difficult to believe at this point that you are arguing in good faith.

Your COPY-PASTE example is nonsensical as already pointed out.

Do you also think that a printing press (or a rubber-stamp for that matter) demonstrates reasoning?

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> Your COPY-PASTE example is nonsensical as already pointed out.

But will you explain why it is nonsensical? Because that has not yet been pointed out.

Lest you forget, here is what the OP said that I replied to:

>> when i show the output that clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand, the arguments quickly shift to "it's not real understanding!" and it's honestly very bizarre.

I also showed "output" that "clearly demonstrates reasoning and understand[ing]". Why is that nonsensical?

Edit: although it won't be very helpful to discuss this if you're not the OP and don't make the same assumptions as they. But go ahead anyway.