[dontlikeyoueith]

A sufficiently large lookup table in DB is mathematically indistinguishable from a sufficiently complicated next token prediction algorithm is mathematically indistinguishable from general intelligence.

All that means is that treating something as a black box doesn't tell you anything about what's inside the box.

[int_19h]

Why do we care, so long as the box can genuinely reason about things?

[chipsrafferty]

What if the box has spiders in it

[dontlikeyoueith]

:facepalm:

I ... did you respond to the wrong comment?

Or do you actually think the DB table can genuinely reason about things?

[int_19h]

Of course it can. Reasoning is algorithmic in nature, and algorithms can be encoded as sufficiently large state transition tables. I don't buy into Searle's "it can't reason because of course it can't" nonsense.

[zeroonetwothree]

It can do something but I wouldn’t call it reasoning. IMO a reasoning algorithmic must be more complex than a lookup table.

[int_19h]

We were talking about a "sufficiently large" table, which means that it can be larger than realistic hardware allows for. Any algorithm operating on bounded memory can be ultimately encoded as a finite state automaton with the table defining all valid state transitions.

[dontlikeyoueith]

This is such a confusion of ideas that I don't even know how to respond any more.

Good luck.