Conversely, the idea that concepts like "reasoning" and "knowing" can be approximated by language models seems like a naive result of anthropomorphism. It was

Conversely, the idea that concepts like "reasoning" and "knowing" can be approximated by language models seems like a naive result of anthropomorphism. It was created to be a tool to estimate the next token in a series based off it's training data. To say that reasoning and knowing can be approximated in the same way says less about the language models themselves and more about the relationship of "reasoning" and "knowing" to "language". In my opinion that's why I think discussions on whether or not GPT-x can reason/know should be taken as seriously as discussions on the physics of torch drives. They seem to assume a relationship between statistical approximation, reasoning, and language exists that isn't proven much like torch drive discussion assumes working nuclear fusion. Essentially I think dismissing the idea of statistical approximations via transformers being able to "reason" and "know" is about as anthropocentric as dismissing the idea that collective consciousnesses shouldn't be granted individual rights. There's a lot of things we need to know and decide before we can even start thinking about what that means.