I don't think there's anything wrong with people trying to see what, if anything, differentiates ChatGPT from humans. Curing cancer etc. is useful, as is ChatGPT, regardless of how it achieves these results. But how it achieves them is important to many people, including myself. If it's no different from humans, then we need to treat it like a human---well no, strike that, we need to treat it _well_ and protect it and give it rights and so on. If it's a fancy calculator, then we don't.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it either. It's an important debate. I just think the arguments usually become very circular and repetitive. If there's nothing an AI could ever do to convince you that it's thinking or reasoning, then really you should be explicit and say "I don't believe an AI can produce human thought or human reasoning" or "an AI is not a human" and nobody will disagree with you on those points.
> and nobody will disagree with you on those points
But that's the point, they do. Even on HN there are many comments saying that humans are just fancy autocomplete, i.e. there's no fundamental difference between humans and LLMs.
tines says>"Even on HN there are many comments saying that humans are just fancy autocomplete, i.e. there's no fundamental difference between humans and LLMs."<
LLMs'may prove a useful analogy as to how parts of human intelligence operate, an analogy that, at the very least, should be thoroughly researched.
"there's no fundamental difference between humans and LLMs."
I think that's a straw man. No one disagrees that humans and LLMs produce cognition differently. One uses a wet, squishy brain. The other uses silicon chips. There's no disagreement here.
