> Boldly asserting that what LLMS do is not cognition is even worse than asserting that it is.
Why? Understanding concepts like "cognition" is a matter of philosophy, not of science.
> He asserts that when we solve a problem through thinking and then express that solution in a machine we’re building a thinking machine. Because it’s an expression of our thought.
Yeah, and that premise makes no sense to me. The crow was thinking; the system consisting of (the crow's beak, dropping pebbles into the water + the pebbles) was not. Humanity has built all kinds of machines that use no logic whatsoever in their operation - which make no decisions, and operate in exactly one way when explicitly commanded to start, until explicitly commanded to stop - and yet we have solved human problems by building them.
Why? Understanding concepts like "cognition" is a matter of philosophy, not of science.
> He asserts that when we solve a problem through thinking and then express that solution in a machine we’re building a thinking machine. Because it’s an expression of our thought.
Yeah, and that premise makes no sense to me. The crow was thinking; the system consisting of (the crow's beak, dropping pebbles into the water + the pebbles) was not. Humanity has built all kinds of machines that use no logic whatsoever in their operation - which make no decisions, and operate in exactly one way when explicitly commanded to start, until explicitly commanded to stop - and yet we have solved human problems by building them.