[fiso64]

Don't try to ham-fist scientific sounding wording into your (very unscientific) argument. This is not a disproof of anything because you failed to define what it means to have the ability to form rational thoughts. With a definition, you would then wanna prove this for humans as a sanity check: Do we never make stupid mistakes? Ok, we make fewer of those than LLMs. Then what is the threshold for accuracy after which you consider a system to be intelligent? Do all humans pass that threshold, or do kids or people with a lower than average IQ fail?

[mjburgess]

This entire paper is written as a disproof of the distributional hypothesis. If you want to understand why it's a profoundly unhelpful pseudoscientific idea, this paper is a good start.

The test for a capacity C in a system1 has nothing to do with proxy measures of that capacity in system2.

The capacity for an oven to cook food may be measured by how much smoke it lets of when burning -- but no amount of "smoke" establishes that a dry ice machine can cook.

This type of "engineering thinking" is pseudoscience.

[fiso64]

>The capacity for an oven to cook food may be measured by how much smoke it lets of when burning -- but no amount of "smoke" establishes that a dry ice machine can cook.

You seem to be talking past me, as nowhere did I claim that LLMs are intelligent. That's the point – Unlike you I do not claim to be able to prove or disprove this. I argue that your comment is the one that is pseudoscientific because you didn't provide (even a semblance of) a rigorous definition of intelligence.

[mdp2021]

> humans

There is intelligent thought and action, and there is unintelligent thought and action. Intelligent is that "which checked" (intus-legere); the other, the """impulsive""", is not.