[hodgehog11]

If you have an extremely simple theory that debunks the status quo, it is safer to assume there is something wrong with your theory, than to assume you are on to something that no one else figured out.

You are implicitly assuming that no statistical model acting on next-token prediction can, conditional on context, replicate all of the outputs that a human would give. This is a provably false claim, mathematically speaking, as human output under these assumptions would satisfy the conditions of Kolmogorov existence.

[dgfitz]

Sure.

However, the status quo is that "AI" doesn't exist, computers only ever do exactly what they are programmed to do, and "thinking/reasoning" wasn't on the table.

I am not the one that needs to disprove the status quo.

[hodgehog11]

No, the status quo is that we really do not know. You made a claim why it is impossible for LLMs to think on the grounds that they are statistical models, so I disproved your claim.

If it really was that simple to dismiss the possibility of "AI", no one would be worried about it.

[dgfitz]

I never said it was impossible. Re-read it, and kindly stop putting words in my mouth. :)