You can't write software code without the ability to think. You can't tactfully respond to emotional expression without the ability to think. If that is snake oil then we are all walking, talking, snake oil.
The fact that AI seems to be so reasoned is not that they are doing reasoning, but because there is a phenomenal amount of reasoning inherently embedded in their training data.
AI actually thinks in the same way that the figures on a movie screen actually move. It's a trick, and the difference may be pedantic, but it's very important in order to have a real discussion about the ramifications of it.
You could also look at a koala and make the argument they function totally differently from us since they almost can't learn anything and are extremely stupid.
You're so wound up in your theories that you're not making much sense to me.
You can clearly see behaviourol pattern in people and in their parents.
For example the boy who brushes his teeth the same way his father does.
I'm really lost on what you think your brain is doing? Have you never thought through things but acted differently? Like procrastination? Spouting out something and thinking after "ah man i should have just done x instead of y'?
Counterexample: using genetic algorithms to write corewars programs: http://www.corewars.org/docs/evolving_warriors.html
> You can't tactfully respond to emotional expression without the ability to think.
Counterexample: ELIZA.
Of course you can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
They’re not responding “tactfully”, you’re projecting emotion to a bunch of words written coldly.
It’s like writing a program that has a number of fixed strings like “I feel sad” or “I’m depressed” and when it sees those it outputs “I’m sorry to hear that. I’m here for you and love you”. The words may be comforting and come at the right time, but there’s no feeling or thought put into them.
How do you empirically measure this?
That feels simplistic, but we're dealing with fundamentally human concepts. I see absolutely no reason to work under the assumption that computer programs are somehow in the same domain as human thought, which is what a lot of people (you) are saying.
The goal should not be to demonstrate ChatGPT and Humans are different, because to me that is obvious and should be the starting point. Rather we should do the inverse, show that ChatGPT is indistinguishable from a person, as measured by Humans. And then, maybe, we can consider granting this computer program human rights like the right to use copyrightable media in a transformative way.
Ah, but that is really hard to do. So the AI tech bros don't do it, and instead work in the opposite direction.