> We are talking about both because he makes both points.
He does. I am talking about one of those points. The epistemology side is entirely unrelated to whether closed source things are good or bad.
> A) Stallman states it possesses inherently unreliable knowledge and judgment (hence gambling)
He says it does not contain knowlegde, not that it is simply unreliable. He happily says unreliable systems have knowledge.
> No. ChatGPT is not. It is marketed (being the operative term) as a wide solution;
A wide solution is nothing to do with things being called AI. This is true both in the field of AI and how RMS defines AI. You can argue that it doesn't meet some other bar that you have, I don't really care, I was responding to his line and why it does not make sense.
> The world wonders. Is this some sort of divine test of patience? Please provide an objective rubric for the proving the existence of the mind. Until then, I'll stick with Descartes.
You said we could prove we could think. I asked if we can do that *in a way we can test other things to see if they can think* because I do not think such a thing exists. You said yes, we do have a test. Now you're complaining that such a thing does not exist
> Now we reach the wall of discussing a closed-source LLM, which was my point.
Ok, it's nothing to do with what I'm talking about though (which should have been extremely clear from what I wrote originally, and given my explicit clarifications to you), so you can have that conversation with someone else.
> Must I really explain the purpose of an ellipsis to you? We both know what you said.
You need to explain how you're using them, because what you're doing to my sentences makes no sense. Here's what I said, and why, broken down for you:
> Can we? In a way we can test another thing? This is entirely distinct from everything else he's saying here
The question of thinking is entirely distinct from what he is saying. It is not at all related, it is a side thing I am responding to you about.
> as the threshold for him is not "can think and reason like a person"
This is key. We are not talking about comparisons to people. He does not talk about thinking or reasoning. He is talking about knowledge and understanding.
> but the barest version of knowledge or understanding
And not even a large amount, we are not comparing to humans, smart humans, animals, etc.
> which he attributes to exceptionally simpler systems.
He says trained yolov5 models have knowledge and are AI.
He says that xgboost models have it and are AI.
He says that transformer based and closed source models are AI.