No, because I have reasons to type and it is those reasons which express what I am doing. An LLM has no reason to be doing anything; it is not responsive to re

No, because I have reasons to type and it is those reasons which express what I am doing. An LLM has no reason to be doing anything; it is not responsive to reasons. If I say, "i like what you're wearing" i may: be flitring, expressing my taste, being enouraging, etc -- perhaps all at once. It is precisely all these reasons for action which LLMs lack. They generate text on the occasion of a prompt, not for any reason (in this sense) at all. So literally: they do not act. An LLM is more like a river than a person. The flow of electrons which brings about a response to a prompt is a (very narrowly) deterministic function of a historical corpus of text. Whereas a person is a narrowly non-deterministic, or very broadly deterministic, function of their experiences and capacities. People grow in their environments, and in growing, acquire novel dispositions which give them reasons for acting. The word "just" here is very important. They are, very much, just generating text. There really isnt any significant achivement here at all. Big tech companies stole decade's worth of our electronic data --- comments, books, forums we created to share with each other -- and ran it through many-mil-$ hardware costing many-mil-$ electricity. They ran it through a fundamentally simple algorithm. All the achivement here is ours as a species communicating digitally and recording our lives. I regard OpenAI, et al. as profoundly parasitical on this. Replaying ourselves back to us, and claiming "ChatGPT" as an author. This scam-framing hoodwinks investors, and the public, into ever higher valuations based on ever more ridiculous hagiography. There is a tool here, and it's value comes from us