[lgessler]

This is a false dichotomy. It's not the case that models are truly capable of reasoning if and only if they are insensitive to irrelevant perturbations to input. In other words, the mere fact that sensitivity to names sometimes causes significant degradations in model performance doesn't mean that we've observed models are incapable of anything we might call "reasoning"—leaving aside the matter of how we'd define that.

[mjburgess]

I didnt say "if and only if" -- this is a conceptual analysis condition which applies only under deductive analysis.

I am using science, ie., abduction, to compare a class of hypotheses.

P(CapacityToThink| DegradingPermutations, ModelDrawsFromHistoricalCases)

is much much much lower than,

P(-CapacityToThink| DegradingPermutations, ModelDrawsFromHistoricalCases)

[achrono]

This might be a naive question, but here me out. Do we really know what the difference is between statistics and the capacity to think? Is "true understanding" rather a continuum of sophistication from a simple adder to Albert Einstein?

My point here isn't "if it quacks like a duck...", but more so that while we are talking about intelligent apparatus we should be comparing apples to apples, and not say "this is a mere engine and that is a living brain".

[lgessler]

Idk, that isn't the sense I got from "It is absolutely trivial to show Hyp2 is false", but sure, I agree with you that this evidence certainly ought to tip the scales one way and not the other.