> So you just replaced the nebulously defined word "think" with an equally nebulously defined word, "reason"? I'll admit I did this. I tried to frame / convey

> So you just replaced the nebulously defined word "think" with an equally nebulously defined word, "reason"? I'll admit I did this. I tried to frame / convey my perspective on the word "think". > Not a very convincing argument. I tried to detail a bit more though. > You do not know what humans do No, but I'm pretty sure I don't try to predict the next word when solving a logical problem through statistical text processing. I would probably do something more like this if I were to bullshit someone or give an insipid political speech, but I think I'm quite bad at it. (nothing to answer on the rest of your comment, it's interesting and I quite agree) (edit: but see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912319)