[aSanchezStern]

I agree that "proof of thought" is a misleading name, but this whole "computers can't think" thing is making LLM skepticism seem very unscientific. There is no universally agreed upon objective definition of what it means to be able to "think" or how you would measure such a thing. The definition that these types of positions seem to rely upon is "a thing that only humans can do", which is obviously a circular one that isn't useful.

[measurablefunc]

If you believe computers can think then you must be able to explain why a chain of dominoes is also thinking when I convert an LLM from transistor relay switches into the domino equivalent. If you don't fall for the marketing hype & study both the philosophical & mathematical literature on computation then it is obvious that computers (or any mechanical gadget for that matter) can not qualify for any reasonable definition of "thinking" unless you agree that all functionally equivalent manifestations of arithmetic must be considered "thinking", including cascading dominoes that correspond to the arithmetic operations in an LLM.

[supern0va]

>If you believe computers can think then you must be able to explain why a chain of dominoes is also thinking when I convert an LLM from transistor relay switches into the domino equivalent.

Sure, but if you assume that physical reality can be simulated by a Turing machine, then (computational practicality aside) one could do the same thing with a human brain.

Unless you buy into some notion of magical thinking as pertains to human consciousness.

[bobxmax]

[flagged]

[encyclopedism]

The jury maybe out on how to judge what 'thought' actually is. However what it is not is perhaps easier to perceive. My digital thermometer does not think when it tells me the temperature.

My paper and pen version of the latest LLM (quite a large bit of paper and certainly a lot of ink I might add) also does not think.

I am surprised so many in the HN community have so quickly taken to assuming as fact that LLM's think or reason. Even anthropomorphising LLM's to this end.

For a group inclined to quickly calling out 'God of the gaps' they have quite quickly invented their very own 'emergence'.

[Terr_]

> this whole "computers can't think" thing is making LLM skepticism seem very unscientific.

It's just shorthand for "that's an extraordinary claim and nobody has provided any remotely extraordinary evidence to support it."

[measurablefunc]

Lots of people consider company valuations evidence of a singularity right around the corner but it requires a very specific kind of mindset to buy into that as "proof" of anything other than very compelling hype by people who have turned financial scams into an art form.