I tend to agree but to adjudicate that someone has to define what they consider reasoning to be.
An approach that might shed some light is instead to define what consciousness ISN'T or what thinking ISN'T. Naively let us say consciousness is NOT a large list of weights (i.e. an LLM).
The uncanny emergent ability of an LLM depends entirely on training data. A mathematical model is used to match output against training data (via loss functions etc). The training data contains all the human ingenuity, logic, rational, patterns and features.
Try giving an LLM model the alphabet ALONE and see what it comes up with? Why are you able to immediately reason that given the alphabet alone it could not 'reason', 'think' or produce much of anything useful.
To address briefly the idea of reasoning and something assembling reasoning somehow implying the same thing. Try the following thought experiment. Given a simulated world (e.g. The Matrix), no matter how good the simulation you would not actually get WET.
The claim that any two things are equivalent just because they look similar is a strong one, and the onus is on the person advancing it to bring evidence, not to insist that they are considered correct until it is disproved. That's how it works with the flat earth and religion and everything else; we shouldn't accept an unsupported conclusion just because some people really, really like AI and don't want to have to justify their claims.
The traditional response to such claims is ridicule [1]; we know trivially from all sorts of examples that presentation is not identity, and so 'but it looks similar' is not a convincing stance.
1 https://sites.psu.edu/sierraastle/2019/10/21/behold-a-man/
Ok, I claim that if something draws reasonable conclusions to questions it hasn't previously seen by performing steps that look like reasoning, then it is reasoning.
If you disagree then please define reasoning.
You're making a strong claim here; the burden of proof [2] lies with you, in much the same way that it would if you declared that horoscopes know the future. We have a sufficient explanation for LLM behaviour that we have no reason to discard based solely on your whim; if you want to be convincing, then you'll need more than assertion.
Similar appearance does not mean identical nature, and your position does not warrant serious consideration until you provide support for it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
You got a perfectly reasonable response, clear, short. Yet, you chose to ignore it and attack the guy by claiming that the fact that LLMs give a reasonable response are his "beliefs", and "unsupported" at that. LoL.
Is you claim that LLMs don't give a reasonable answers? Did you try to ask them some complex questions in the last 12 months?
Or is your line of reasoning more in the line of "they heard all the questions before, and just memorized the answers?"
Or, do you not agree with a statement that giving reasonable answers is reasoning?
The appearance of similarity in two things we can already explain without having to posit identical nature is not proof that they are identical. Screwdrivers and hammers, planes and birds: we know about all sorts of things with similar effects but different mechanisms.
If you want to argue for more similarity, you need more evidence than just your belief and superficial resemblance. That's got nothing to do with the results or capabilities of LLMs (and it's either blinkered or disingenuous that you're trying to elide that).
> do you not agree with a statement that giving reasonable answers is reasoning?
Note the seventh word: it's a statement. The other commenters knows it's a statement, you know it's a statement, not an argument or an explanation. but you are seemingly desperate for people to accept it as a proven fact without putting in the effort to prove it.
It's unscientific and frankly embarrassing to be so certain without being able to do anything but hector about it; if it's so obvious, prove it.