[JohnMakin]

These aren't thoughts how humans literally think them.

I can write a program to produce a string that looks like human thinking, is it human thinking? Of course it isn't. It's such a silly comparison.

[infinite_spin]

> aren't remotely comparable to the way humans think and act

Neural networks in machine learning/AI are comparable to neural networks in human brains. What made you think they aren't?

[gowld]

That's an incredibly deep misunderstanding. Almost as bad as saying that human is the same as a tree because we're both made of carbohydrates and proteins.

[infinite_spin]

The comparison I provided is between how an LLM functions and one part of how a brain functions. It's not an equivalence, I did not say they are "the same". You made the claim that these systems "aren't remotely comparable", and when faced with a clear comparison, you claim "deep misunderstanding".. Have you any arguments to make, or is this going to devolve into more statements that both mischaracterize and muddy the water?

[anonymars]

Not to disagree with the overall point, but in fairness you are responding to a different person from the one that made the original claim