[naasking]

> The model itself is stateless, and it doesn't seem right to me to ascribe "intent" to a stateless function.

Statefulness can be modelled statelessly so "statelessness" is not a sufficient reason to dismiss intentionality. The only question is whether the relationship between the inputs of the function and its outputs correspond to what we might call "intent", which the cited definition attempts to outline. Obviously it's only a high-level view that leaves many details unanswered.

> Otherwise, we are in the somewhat absurd position of needing to argue that all mathematical functions "intend" to yield their result.

Not all mathematical functions have a continuity of internal identity and self-reference as seems to be the case with LLMs.

[prox]

Their identity often falls apart after a few rounds and the self reference seems to my experience at least simply a veneer from linguistic training. It’s a great illusion but an illusion nonetheless.

[naasking]

Your identity falls apart every night. What's your point?