> You’ve shifted your goal posts. Remember the problem we're discussing is whether these LLM systems can think. Your deliberate misinterpretation of a question

> You’ve shifted your goal posts. Remember the problem we're discussing is whether these LLM systems can think. Your deliberate misinterpretation of a question does not make you win that argument. An LLM can solve problems for itself in just the same way that a human can solve problems for itself. It cannot directly rewire your thinking in the same way that another human cannot. > It requires human thought to cook. Why? What part of cooking requires human thought? https://www.moley.com/ https://www.moley.com/ > nor is smell digitizable in an equivalent way to humans, Sensors aren't thinking, but people are working on better olfactory sensors too. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44182-025-00071-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s44182-025-00071-y > assertion that’s flatly untrue. You have yet to show me a problem that can only be solved by human thinking. > When your “proof” for thinking is the output What other way can we show thinking? From the input? Obviously not. > My analogy shows the idiocy of your argument It shows the idiocy of your argument. The output is thinking, just as the output is light. You are the one who continues to mistake the output for the mechanism. > Religion is always absurd, and this new one is no different. Your assertion of magic in biology that can't be replicated artificially is indeed absurd and one that almost no scientist would agree with.