I see the misunderstanding, sorry. You’re still in the wrong though. while you weren’t calling it thinking, the article certainly was. THAT’S why we’re saying it’s not. we’re doing what you said we should, but it’s the inverse, and you call it anti-AI. the jackass who wrote that article is jumping the gun and we’re saying “how tf can you call it thinking” and i see your reply calling that anti AI, seems like a reasonable mistake ye?
But the comment I replied to didn’t just deny the confirmation that AI is thinking, it also denied that AI “thinks” at all. That puts him in a position of making an unproven claim. In fact, he is directly making that claim, while the article he is denying only alludes to saying that LLM “thinks” like a human. That makes his unproven claim even more egregious than the article’s.
I see the misunderstanding, sorry. You’re still in the wrong though. while you weren’t calling it thinking, the article certainly was. THAT’S why we’re saying it’s not. we’re doing what you said we should, but it’s the inverse, and you call it anti-AI. the jackass who wrote that article is jumping the gun and we’re saying “how tf can you call it thinking” and i see your reply calling that anti AI, seems like a reasonable mistake ye?
But the comment I replied to didn’t just deny the confirmation that AI is thinking, it also denied that AI “thinks” at all. That puts him in a position of making an unproven claim. In fact, he is directly making that claim, while the article he is denying only alludes to saying that LLM “thinks” like a human. That makes his unproven claim even more egregious than the article’s.