does it really matter if it can be described as cognition or not? to me these models are useful for how effective they are, and that's literally it. the processes going on within them are extremely complex and at times very impressive, and whether some arbitrarily undefined word applies or not does not really matter. I think sometimes people forget that words are not maths or logic. when words come into language, no one sits down and makes sure that they're 100% logically and philosophically sound, they just start to be used, usually based on a feeling, and slowly gather and lose meaning over time. perhaps when dictionaries were first written there was some effort to do this, but for lots of words its probably impossible or incredibly difficult even now, never mind 200 years ago, if they could even be bothered in the first place.

to give an example, a quite boring "philosophy question" that's bandied around, usually by children, is "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?". the answer is that "sound" is a word without a commonly-accepted, logically-derived meaning, for the reasons given above. so if to you the word sound is something human, then the answer is no, but if to you a sound is not something human, then the answer is yes. there's nothing particularly interesting or complex about the thought experiment, it's just a poorly defined word

If can answer questions about a subject because you want to university and studied it, does that make you a plagiarist?

To me this is the usual "it doesn't _really_ understand" claim which people say because they feel like their human exceptionality is threatened.

I suspect the disappointment wasn't about whenever LLMs exhibit cognitive-like properties or not, but rather about the negative connotations tied to the word "plagiarism". Yea, they replicate patterns from their training data. So do we (ok, to be fair I have no idea about others but I believe I know that I do), and that's normal.