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.
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'.
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.
No magic is necessary to understand that carbon & silicon are not equivalent. The burden of proof is on those who think silicon can be a substitute for carbon & all that it entails. I don't buy into magical thinking like Turing machines being physically realizable b/c I have studied enough math & computer science to not be confused by abstractions & their physical realizations.
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.
And your definition of thinking is?
Not arithmetic or boolean algebra. What's your definition?
> Not arithmetic or boolean algebra.
That isn’t a definition or even a coherent attempt.
For starters, what kind of cognition or computation can’t be implemented with either logic or arithmetic?
What is or is not “cognition” is going to be a higher level property than what basic universally capable substrate is used. Given such substrates can easily simulate each other, be substituted for each other.
Even digital and analog systems can be used to implement each other to arbitrary accuracy.
Cognition is a higher level concern.
I'm not the one making obtuse claims and desperately trying to trigger reactions.
Address the substance of my statements or save yourself the time & further keystrokes responding to my posts.
> 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.