That is some of the most nonsensical philosophical rambling I've ever seen. There are many problems with it but the main one is that it assumes a priori that hu

That is some of the most nonsensical philosophical rambling I've ever seen. There are many problems with it but the main one is that it assumes a priori that humans are intelligent and machines are not, and then uses circular reasoning to justify that. > it is the human being reading intelligence into the behavior of LLMs. There is none in the LLM. There is no justification for why it must be a human and only a human that can "read intelligence into" something. I give up. I don't think you even know what you're claiming.