I presume you are claiming by saying orthogonal that statistics are neither required nor preclude X.
You are using the presence of statistical processes as a claim against ChatGPT with
>It's a derivative of that being thrown back at you via statistics.
For this to have any weight given the orthogonal claim, you are asserting that LLMs are entirely statistics (the property you assert is orthogonal and thus carries no weight, yet invoking it as a property suggests that it is relevant, presumably because there are no other properties)
Then we get into the weeds of what you mean by statistics. It could be broad or narrow. If it is narrow then it is easy to claim neither sufficient nor precluding, but extremely hard to draw any other conclusion because any system can break free of the proof by including the tiniest bit that does not fit within the narrow definition of statistics. If the definition is broader to include everything that happens within ChatGPT, then you are faced with the question of what is not covered by that definition of statistics. How can you show that human minds do not operate within those limitations.
I don't think that ChatGPT is conscious in any sense that would be meaningful to a layman, but I also don't think that you can demonstrate it could not be purely based on the fact it uses any particular process without a rigorous proof of the limitations of that process.
The only way you could reasonably
No, there’s no evidence suggesting that.
If you are refering to the mathematical universe, its a fun mental excersise, not a serious idea.
It's actually the only idea that explains how the universe came to exist with nothing outside it and no creator.
It think that's the most boring and irrelevant question in human culture and I believe humanity is about a million years from tackling it in any competent manner. We have way more to find out about our smallness and irrelevance first.