> People would’ve said the same thing about ELIZA. I believe this to be the case because the appearance of thoughtfulness is a smooth function, not a line in

> People would’ve said the same thing about ELIZA. I believe this to be the case because the appearance of thoughtfulness is a smooth function, not a line in the sand. Why are you bringing consciousness into this discussion? Consciousness isn't thoughtfulness. > Again, why should we believe that LLMs are capable of thought, other than the fact that they vaguely “seem” to communicate with conscious intent? I define "to think" as the act of applying context to a model. What do you define it as? Given my definition, llm inference seems plainly to be an act of thought.