[xp84]

Honestly, arguing seems futile when it comes to opinions like GP. Those opinions resemble religious zealotry to me in that they take for granted that only humans can think. Any determinism of any kind in a non-human is seized upon as proof its mere clockwork, yet they can’t explain how humans think in order to contrast it.

[AdieuToLogic]

> Honestly, arguing seems futile when it comes to opinions like GP. Those opinions resemble religious zealotry to me in that they take for granted that only humans can think. Any determinism of any kind in a non-human is seized upon as proof its mere clockwork, yet they can’t explain how humans think in order to contrast it.

Putting aside the ad hominems, projections, and judgements, here is a question for you:

If I made a program where a NPC[0] used the A-star[1] algorithm to navigate a game map, including avoiding obstacles and using the shortest available path to reach its goal, along with identifying secondary goal(s) should there be no route to the primary goal, does that qualify to you as the NPC "thinking"?

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm

[xp84]

Answer: I suppose no? But my point is only this:

1. People with the "AI isn't thinking" opinions move the goalposts, the borderline between "just following a deterministic algorithm" and "thinking" wherever needed in order to be right.

2. I argue that the brain itself must either be deterministic (just wildly complex) or, for lack of a better word, supernatural. If it's not deterministic, only God knows how our thinking process works. Every single person postulating about whether AI is "thinking" cannot fully explain why a human chooses a particular action, just as AI researchers can't explain why Claude does a certain thing in all scenarios. Therefore they are much more similar than they are different.

3. But really, the important thing is, unless you're approaching this from a religious POV (which is arguably much more interesting) the obsessive sorting of highly complex and not-even-remotely-fully-understood processes into "thinking" and "NOT thinking" groups is pointless and silly.

[AdieuToLogic]

> 1. People with the "AI isn't thinking" opinions move the goalposts, the borderline between "just following a deterministic algorithm" and "thinking" wherever needed in order to be right.

I did not present an opinion regarding whether "AI thinks" or not, but instead said:

  The onus of clarifying the article's assertions ...

  As it pertains to anthropomorphizing an algorithm (a.k.a. 
  stating it "thinks") is on the author(s).

As to the concept of thinking, regardless of entity considered, I proffer the topic a philosophical one having no "right or wrong" answer so much as having an opportunity to deepen enlightenment of those who contemplate question.