4 ms·
But you are now arguing against a strawman, namely, "it is not possible to construct a computer that thinks". The argument that was actually made was "LLMs do
by danaris 11mo ago
But you are now arguing against a strawman, namely, "it is not possible to construct a computer that thinks".
The argument that was actually made was "LLMs do not think".
- School-Cotton 11mo agoA: X, because Y B: But Y would also imply Z C: A was never arguing for Z! This is a strawman!
- danaris 11mo ago"LLMs cannot think like brains" does not imply "no computer it will ever be possible to construct could think like a brain".
- School-Cotton 11mo ago“LLMs cannot think like brains” is “X”.
- danaris 11mo agoThat appears to be your own assumptions coming into play. Everything I've seen says "LLMs cannot think like brains" is not dependent on an argument that "no computer can think like a brain", but rather on an understanding of just what LLMs are—and what they are not.