I agree that "proof of thought" is a misleading name, but this whole "computers can't think" thing is making LLM skepticism seem very unscientific. There is no universally agreed upon objective definition of what it means to be able to "think" or how you would measure such a thing. The definition that these types of positions seem to rely upon is "a thing that only humans can do", which is obviously a circular one that isn't useful.

If you believe computers can think then you must be able to explain why a chain of dominoes is also thinking when I convert an LLM from transistor relay switches into the domino equivalent. If you don't fall for the marketing hype & study both the philosophical & mathematical literature on computation then it is obvious that computers (or any mechanical gadget for that matter) can not qualify for any reasonable definition of "thinking" unless you agree that all functionally equivalent manifestations of arithmetic must be considered "thinking", including cascading dominoes that correspond to the arithmetic operations in an LLM.

>If you believe computers can think then you must be able to explain why a chain of dominoes is also thinking when I convert an LLM from transistor relay switches into the domino equivalent.

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.

The proof immediately follows from the ability of silicon systems in principle to model carbon ones with arbitrary precision.

I recently wrote a simulation of water molecules & got really confused when the keyboard started getting water condensation on it. I concluded that simulating water was equivalent to manifesting it in reality & immediately stopped the simulation b/c I didn't want to short-circuit the CPU.

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'.

> this whole "computers can't think" thing is making LLM skepticism seem very unscientific.

It's just shorthand for "that's an extraordinary claim and nobody has provided any remotely extraordinary evidence to support it."

Lots of people consider company valuations evidence of a singularity right around the corner but it requires a very specific kind of mindset to buy into that as "proof" of anything other than very compelling hype by people who have turned financial scams into an art form.

Do you understand human thinking well enough to determine what can think and what can't? We have next to no idea how an organic brain works.

I understand computers, software, & the theory of computation well enough to know that there is no algorithm or even a theoretical algorithmic construction that can be considered thought. Unless you are willing to concede that thinking is nothing more than any number of models equivalent to a Turing machine, e.g. lambda calculus, Post systems, context aware grammars, carefully laid out dominoes, permutations of bit strings, etc. then you must admit that computers are not thinking. If you believe computers are thinking then you must also admit dominoes are thinking when falling in a cascading chain.

You are confusing primitives with things built with those primitives.

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.

Sure, sufficiently advanced dominoes.

https://xkcd.com/505/

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.

Animals can also think. It's not restricted to one specific type of primate physiology. But it seems like you think you're nothing more than falling cascades of dominoes in which case we don't really have much to discuss. Your metaphysical assumptions are fundamentally at odds with what I consider a reasonable stance on computation & reality.

> Animals can also think

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.

Hard to argue with religious beliefs.

The void created by modernity must be filled somehow so it might as well be the great programmer in the great beyond. Just as childish as religions of pre-modernity but very useful if you're a technocrat building data centers & trying to pump the valuations of companies that can benefit from all that buildout w/ promises of forthcoming utopias approximating the palace of the great programmer in the great beyond. Just a few more nuclear power plants & a few more GPU clusters is all that's needed.

Ideally it is filled with curiosity and continued exploration.

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.

I recommend taking your own advice on that one, specifically the part about reframing efforts of strangers.

I take your views to be exactly as you state them.

Then there is no need to reframe anything so you might as well get to the actual disagreement you have w/ them.

I think you are misjudging which side of the religion/non-religion divide you are on.