encyclopedism

That argument you posed does not follow. Brains do all of those things, at least I know mine does because those are the most intimate experiences I have. More intimate than even my sense experiences. It's what lead Kant to exclaim 'cogito ergo sum' and Ibn Sina before him to also note that fact.

Moreover how the brain does what it does an open academic question. One of the most difficult, please see the Hard problem of consciousness for example.

I can make certain determined judgments about things, my digital thermometer does not think or understand when it tells me the temperature, something I myself would be unable to determine. My digital LLM does not think for the same reason. Importantly my paper and pen version of that very same LLM would also not think.

There is a qualitative difference between humans and LLM's 'hallucinating' (if we can even apply this terminology to humans which I contend is in-appropriate).

I'd add a simple thought experiment. A poor student doing a multi-choice exam paper and subsequently achieving a poor mark lets say 30% and now a child of 10 years attempting the same paper and achieving say 50%. Looked quantitively a perspective arises attributing understanding to a child who has chanced 50% on a multi-choice paper when compared to a student having studied the subject at hand.

Qualitatively however and we know this intuitively it is certainly NOT the case that the child of 10 comprehends or understands more than the poor student.

You can make categorical judgements on many things that are hard to define. Often by taking the opposite approach. It's hard to define what consciousness itself is yet I can define what it isn't and that teases a lot out.

So I can categorically say LLM's do not understand by quite literally understanding what NOT understanding is.

We know what LLM's are and what they are NOT.

Please see my earlier comment above:

> LLM's do not think, understand, reason, reflect, comprehend and they never shall.

I would have thought to assume that, but given how many on HN throw about how LLM's can think, reason, understand I think it does bear clearly defining some of the terms used.

> The fact is: something fundamental has changed that enables a computer to pretty effectively understand natural language.

I have commented elsewhere but this bears repeating

LLM's do not think, understand, reason, reflect, comprehend and they never shall.

If you had enough paper and ink and the patience to go through it, you could take all the training data and manually step through and train the same model. Then once you have trained the model you could use even more pen and paper to step through the correct prompts to arrive at the answer. All of this would be a completely mechanical process. This really does bear thinking about. It's amazing the results that LLM's are able to acheive. But let's not kid ourselves and start throwing about terms like AGI or emergence just yet. It makes a mechanical process seem magical (as do computers in general).

I should add it also makes sense as to why it would, just look at the volume of human knowledge (the training data). It's the training data with the mass quite literally of mankind's knowledge, genius, logic, inferences, language and intellect that does the heavy lifting.

That's a very difficult question to answer. It's an open problem in academia.

To tease out something often it can be useful to approach problems from the opposite end. For example what is NOT the way in which human cognition works?

We know how LLM's function, humans certainly do not function in a similar fashion. For one I can reason well enough that next year is 2026 without having most all human literary output fed to me. It's amazing how much the human mind does with so little information.

The correct conclusion to draw and also to reiterate:

LLM's do not think, understand, reason, reflect, comprehend and they never shall.

I have commented elsewhere but this bears repeating

If you had enough paper and ink and the patience to go through it, you could take all the training data and manually step through and train the same model. Then once you have trained the model you could use even more pen and paper to step through the correct prompts to arrive at the answer. All of this would be a completely mechanical process. This really does bear thinking about. It's amazing the results that LLM's are able to acheive. But let's not kid ourselves and start throwing about terms like AGI or emergence just yet. It makes a mechanical process seem magical (as do computers in general).

I should add it also makes sense as to why it would, just look at the volume of human knowledge (the training data). It's the training data with the mass quite literally of mankind's knowledge, genius, logic, inferences, language and intellect that does the heavy lifting.

One doesn't even need to vibe code. Zoho type apps e.g. mail/smtp already exist there are ton's of free open source options. You can one-click deploy them on AWS/Azure already. To be clear I understand reducing friction is also a 'feature' that users would be willing to pay for.

Longer term AI platforms such as Replit could offer easily deployment of ready made app templates e.g. a CRM. However you still need to pay for them much the same as paying Zoho, prices could be lower. But you still need to pay for them and on a monthly basis too. Vibe coding platforms will still be a SaaS business.

I have commented elsewhere but this bears repeating

If you had enough paper and ink and the patience to go through it, you could take all the training data and manually step through and train the same model. Then once you have trained the model you could use even more pen and paper to step through the correct prompts to arrive at the answer. All of this would be a completely mechanical process. This really does bear thinking about. It's amazing the results that LLM's are able to acheive. But let's not kid ourselves and start throwing about terms like AGI or emergence just yet. It makes a mechanical process seem magical (as do computers in general).

I should add it also makes sense as to why it would, just look at the volume of human knowledge (the training data). It's the training data with the mass quite literally of mankind's knowledge, genius, logic, inferences, language and intellect that does the heavy lifting.

This is a poor take on what LLM's actually are. They don't understand in any real sense.

If you had enough paper and ink and the patience to go through it all you could take all the training data and manually step through and train the same model. Then once you have trained the model you could use more pen and paper to step through the correct prompts to arrive at the answer. All of this would be a completely mechanical process.

> Philosophy seems a term generally reserved for the stuff we don't understand yet and so is inherently kind of speculative. Once you have a definite answer it gets called science instead.

As someone has commented earlier, Philosophy applied is given a name but it's a sub-discipline of Philosophy.

> Understanding the world through experiment?

That's a decent enough definition. Science precludes so much of the world we know which I think people really fail to realise. It's why I think it's important for people to understand what Philosophy is and what Science isn't.

For example logic isn't science. Science presupposes it but it is NOT science. There are many such examples.

I don't think that's it at all.

> It still needs guardrails, and some domain knowledge, at least to prevent it from using any destructive commands

That just means the AI isn't adequate. Which is the point I am trying to make. It should 'understand' not to issue destructive commands.

By way of crude analogy, when you're talking to a doctor you're necessarily assuming he has domain knowledge, guardrails etc otherwise he wouldn't be a doctor. With AI that isn't the case as it doesn't understand. It's fed training data and provided prompts so as to steer in a particular direction.

That's not it at all. I would ask what you consider science to be?

I recognise it because I have had the subjective experience of 'redness'. So whether it exists for any other human I cannot say but I am certainly 100% certain it exists for me. However I should add that I can't fully define what this experience is. Though people say the same of love!

I'll appeal to authority in that scientists and philosophers today in all of the worlds universities and those in the past have determined to understand this phenomenon. That it exists is a given, what it is, is more murky. Again it's not me saying this.

It seems to me that 'Philosophy is meaningless' has been ingrained into so many people it's almost propaganda-esque!

To see this sentiment from supposed 'scientific' individuals is shocking. I wonder if they could define what science actually is.

What I'm trying to tease out is isn't an opinion alone. It's a generally understood problem in the scientific community. I'm highlighting it to illustrate the issues at hand.

> So you end up either needing to draw a line somewhere between mechanical computation and qualia computation, or you can relegate it to supernatural (a soul) or grey areas (quantum magic).

Quite literally the jury is still out. It is a hotly debated topic approached from various angles. Arguments are nuanced which is why you fill find ideas such as panpsychism thrown into the mix. I hate appealing to authority but in this instance it is more than warranted. Humans have grappled with this for centuries and the problem hasn't gone away.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

> So basically a consumer with no idea of anything.

Not knowing is sort of the purpose of AI. It's doing the 'intelligent' part for you. If we need to know it's because the AI is currently NOT good enough.

Tech companies seem to be selling the following caveat: if it's not good enough today don't worry it will be in XYZ time.

I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.

I would add I find it difficult to understand why so few have even a basic level of philosophical understanding. The attitude of being entirely dismissive of it is the height of ignorance I'm sure. I would presume few would be able to define then what Science actually is.

> If we can't define, recognize or measure them, how exactly do we know that AI doesn't have them?

In the same way my digital thermometer doesn't have quaila. LLM's do not either. I really tire of this handwaving 'magic' concepts into LLM's.

Qualia being difficult to define and yet being such an immediate experience that we humans all know intimately and directly is quite literally the problem. Attempted definitions fall short and humans have tried and I mean really tried hard to solve this.

Please see Hard problem of consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

> What I'm saying is people are communicating better. For most ideas, writing is just a transport vessel for ideas. And people now have tools to communicate better than they would have been.

You would have to define 'better'.

Unsubstantiated

Well put...lol :-)

Absolutely fascinating. I'm surprised by the quality. Indicative of both a keen eye and a fine skill for art.

The jury maybe out on how to judge what 'thought' actually is. However what it is not is perhaps easier to perceive. My digital thermometer does not think when it tells me the temperature.

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'.

> Is it really much different from most people? The average Joe doesn't produce novel theories every day"

You've presented a false choice.

However the average Joe does indeed produce unique and novel thoughts every day. If it were not the case he would be brain dead. Each decision - wearing blue or red today - every tiny thought, action, feeling, indecision, crisis, or change of heart these are just as important.

The jury maybe out on how to judge what 'thought' actually is. However what it is not is perhaps easier to perceive. My digital thermometer does not think when it tells me the temperature.

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'.