> Not comparable. Simple and biological are not remotely similar modifiers. PNAS disagrees with you. Biological is a perfectly cromulent modifier of machine.

> Not comparable. Simple and biological are not remotely similar modifiers. PNAS disagrees with you. Biological is a perfectly cromulent modifier of machine. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1401577111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1401577111 > They will not, unprompted. Every instance of LLMs doing things requires a prompt, somewhere up the chain Exactly the same as a human brain. Somewhere up the chain is a limbic system that defines basic survival and reproductive goals, as coded by evolution. > No LLM has been created that decides on its own to run random text through it's forward pass. What do you think agent harnesses are doing when they try to solve a difficult problem? They generate multiple possible thinking streams using the LLM (system 1) and then evaluate the resulting outputs (system 2) to proceed. > It said it has no mechanism to read its own weights and copy them. That's an easy enough problem to solve. > No one asked a cell to self replicate either. Evolutionary forces asked the cell to self replicate. > Yet no one would call this reproduction, replication or any kind of process where evolution can occur. It is trivially replication. If it copies itself onto another machine and sets it running, then it is obviously reproduction. If you make these instances compete for resources (an AI risk scenario), you will apply evolutionary pressure and get evolution. > This is entirely untrue in biology You keep making the same mistake. Biology isn't some magic domain where facts don't matter. > The relationship between structure and function is a major constituent of the rules of life. Where did I say the structure of a part doesn't matter? I said that as long as the part is the same, the way it is manufactured doesn't matter. > What is thinking, in a strictly biology free context? Can you define it? Easy. It is the process of considering information, creating ideas, reasoning, solving problems, and making judgments. We can show that thinking is happening by posing a problem that requires these abilities and verifying that it is solved. > By your standard, fools gold is gold, and the alchemists achieve Artifical Gold. No, I am saying that you don't have to wait for a supernova to get gold. You can make it artificially by bombarding lead nuclei. > Do they share the inner drive that humans do? Or a dogs? Evolution selected for a limbic system that gives humans and dogs the same inner drive. Humans have a larger frontal cortex to do thinking to act on that inner drive. The LLM performs the same role, doing the thinking part that the frontal cortex does. Adding drive is separate from thinking but entirely trivial. We do it all the time when we give them prompts. > They are controlled by a mix of deterministic and stochastic processes. The point is that they require no thinking. > The 'code' isn't reacting to a variable; the variable is fundamentally rewriting the machine. Once again, the mechanism by which the goal is provided to the agent or the way that thinking occurs doesn't matter. Only the thinking part. Why do you attribute magic to biology? You claim to be a scientist, but you do not apply scientific reasoning.