[antonvs]

> I don't understand what direct relevance you believe the human thought process has to the issue at hand.

You're the one who raised it. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "isn't real" - do you believe a human narrating their thought process is saying something that's more real?

Someone else replied to your comment asking essentially the same question, perhaps better phrased:

> What would be different if it was "real"? What makes you think that when humans "narrate" "their" "internal thought process", it's any more "real"?

[fc417fc802]

No, I did not raise it. I said that X is false. You responded with "why do you think Y is true" and now you ask "do you believe that Y is true" neither of which is relevant to X being true or false. Humans and LLMs are not the same thing. The colloquial term for this is whataboutism.

What do I mean by isn't real? Exactly what I said originally. It's a roleplay of something that sounds plausible as opposed to what actually happened. There is obviously some process that is producing the output. The thinking trace is not a representation of that underlying process. Rather the thinking trace is an adjacent output of that same process.