[abdullahkhalids]

> No one in neuroscience, psychology or any related field can point to reasoning or 'consciousness' or whatever you wish to call it and say it appeared from X.

This is not a good argument. Natural systems, the subject of neuroscience/psychology, are much harder to analyze than artificial systems. For example, it's really difficult to study atmospheric gases and figure out Boyle's/Charles law. But put a gas in a closed chamber and change pressure or temperature and these laws are trivially apparent.

LLMs are much more legible systems than animal brains, and they are amenable to experiment. So, it is much more likely that we will be able to identify what "reasoning" is by studying these systems than animal brains.

P.S. Don't think we are there yet, as much as internet commentators might assert.

[hnisoss]

Yea but following your example/analogy you have gas-gas but brain-llm. So how can we then experiment? It's a simulation at best.

[Byamarro]

Both jets and birds fly but do it in a completely different way. Who said that there's only one way to achieve reasoning?

[cainxinth]

This feels like an appropriate place to share this again:

> "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." - Edsger Dijkstra

[rambambram]

Parrots can both fly and talk, what about that!?

[afpx]

This paper may be interesting to some of you:

Discretization of continuous input spaces in the hippocampal autoencoder

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.14600