This is proof of verifiable logic. Computers can not think so calling it proof of thought misrepresents what's actually happening.
That isn’t a definition or even a coherent attempt.
For starters, what kind of cognition or computation can’t be implemented with either logic or arithmetic?
What is or is not “cognition” is going to be a higher level property than what basic universally capable substrate is used. Given such substrates can easily simulate each other, be substituted for each other.
Even digital and analog systems can be used to implement each other to arbitrary accuracy.
Cognition is a higher level concern.
Sure, but if you assume that physical reality can be simulated by a Turing machine, then (computational practicality aside) one could do the same thing with a human brain.
Unless you buy into some notion of magical thinking as pertains to human consciousness.
It's just shorthand for "that's an extraordinary claim and nobody has provided any remotely extraordinary evidence to support it."
My paper and pen version of the latest LLM (quite a large bit of paper and certainly a lot of ink I might add) also does not think.
I am surprised so many in the HN community have so quickly taken to assuming as fact that LLM's think or reason. Even anthropomorphising LLM's to this end.
For a group inclined to quickly calling out 'God of the gaps' they have quite quickly invented their very own 'emergence'.
We're already at the point where LLMs can beat the Turing test. If we define thinking as something only humans can do, then we can't decide if anyone is thinking at all just by talking to them through text, because we can't tell if they're human any more.
Not manufactured stop gaps or generic cynicism.
There is no reason more GPUs can’t contribute to further understanding, as one of many tools that have already assisted with relevent questions and problems.
Opt out of serious inquiry, no excuse needed, if you wish. Reframing others efforts is not necessary to do that.
Sure thing buddy, I'm the confused one in this entire millenarian frenzy.
What are you saying?
Are you saying you have a clear definition for thinking, and you can demonstrate that animals pass that definituon?
Then share the definition.
Or are you simply defining thinking as a common property of humans and animals, using animals and human behavior as exemplars?
A useful definition for focusing inquiry. But it does not clarify or constrain what else might or might not be enabled to think.
Or are you defining thinking as an inherent property of animals and humans that other things cannot have because they are not animals or humans?
Fine, but that that’s an exercise in naming. Something we are all free to do however we want. It has no explanatory power.
Complex phenomena emerge from interactions of things that don’t exhibit that phenomena all the time.
Atoms can’t think. In no sense can you find any thinking in an atom.
They are no different from dominos in that respect.
You can pile atoms to the moon without seeing any thinking.
Yet they can still be arranged so they do think.