It seems the value of this type of approach is not the "thinking" (i.e., contextual understanding) but rather the computational speed of assessing random trials. Compared to evolutionary timescales, it's very, very fast but I wouldn't characterize "thinking" to the randomness of evolution, despite its success.
- uses the information it already has combined with new inputs to form new information based on both (aka reasoning)
- retains learned information over time (aka memory)
- contains feedback loops to eventually eradicate "wrong" information (aka learning)
- converges to similar conclusions in similar circumstances (aka reasoning or possibly instict)
At least several of the most important parts of thought are there, though it is obviously very different than our own mind. That's OK, both submarines and penguins can move underwater but they do it in very different ways. No reason to think that thought wouldn't have multiple ways in which it could be implemented.
Evolution is also almost certainly not self-aware but neither is a dog and we consider dogs to be capable of thinking too.
I agree, and I didn't mean to imply it's not useful. But I do think it's different and important to understand the limitations regarding those differences. In one important aspect, contextual understanding allows for better decisions in novel environments. The "random trial and error" approach has much less additional benefit in that regard.
