I ultimately don't really disagree with you but your vitriol really undermines your point. Figured you should be aware of how you come across, at least from my

I ultimately don't really disagree with you but your vitriol really undermines your point. Figured you should be aware of how you come across, at least from my perspective. Plus there's an argument to be made that you and I are also generating likely sequences based on the sum of our experiences just in a more sophisticated (and evolutionarily refined) manner. There's at least no hard evidence to the contrary that I'm aware of. Fake edit: I'm aware that my final statement is somewhat bait for the neuroscientists in the crowd. In this context I'm of the opinion that defining if agi 'thinks' requires a far more rigorous definition of what it is that we (and other problem solving / pass-the-mirror-test animals) are doing. For example, "It's the soul and GPT-4 doesn't have one" doesn't even come close to being rigorous enough, imo.