Hacker News Reader

I think the X cant do Y arguments require strict definitions of X and Y.

w.r.t. this post : let's define 'reasoning' here, because there are definitions of 'reason' and 'reasoning' that would fit to a simple condition comparison let alone a massively complex llm.

as for the meta cognition bit : show me a human that can accurately affirm when they know something. These kind of things aren't binary, nor can they be.

View on HN

LLMs generate text, and they do not use any system of logic or syllogisms to do so. It's a pretty cut-and-dry obvsious statement of fact, no need to muddy the conversation here.

So by your lights, the vast majority of humans don't reason either (and even those who do don't do it most of the time)?

Have you read the chinese room argument?

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil201/Searle.pdf

People have been having these discussions since 1980 at least. I'm not going to bother rehashing the issue endlessly in shortform internet comments, but this paper exists if you're really interested in the subject.

Yep, familiar with it. I think the Chinese room is clearly a bad argument. The brain is just as much a "chinese room" as a computer is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com