>I did not in any way "trivialise AI". LLMS are amazing and a massive accomplishment. I just wanted to contrast them to Asimov's conception of AI. Point taken.

>I did not in any way "trivialise AI". LLMS are amazing and a massive accomplishment. I just wanted to contrast them to Asimov's conception of AI. Point taken. As lelandbatey said, your comment seems to be the one case where it's not meant to trivialise. >I don't believe that LLMs are capable of thinking. I don't believe that computers, as they exist now, are capable of thinking (regardless of the program they run). I do believe that it is possible to build machines that can think -- we just don't know how. The (regardless of the program they run) suggests you think that AI cannot be achieved by algorithmic means. That runs a little counter to the belief that it is possible to build thinking machines unless you think those future machines have some non algorithmic enhancement that takes them beyond machines, I do not assume we will "accidentally" create thinking machines, but I certainly think it's not impossible. On the other hand I suspect the best chance we have of understanding consciousness will be by attempting to build one.