I wasn’t calling it thinking. I’m saying people claiming it’s not is just jumping the gun. It’s also funny you’re simply claiming I am pro AI without needing any proof. This is what I meant when I said people who are anti-AI should strive to be better than the AI they criticise. Acting based on non-facts makes you no better than AI with their hallucinations.
Its also funny that you’re calling me out when I’m just mirroring what the other guy is doing to make a point. He’s acting like his is the correct opinion, yet you only calling me out because the guy is on your side of the argument. That’s simply a bad faith argument on your part.
I see the misunderstanding, sorry. You’re still in the wrong though. while you weren’t calling it thinking, the article certainly was. THAT’S why we’re saying it’s not. we’re doing what you said we should, but it’s the inverse, and you call it anti-AI. the jackass who wrote that article is jumping the gun and we’re saying “how tf can you call it thinking” and i see your reply calling that anti AI, seems like a reasonable mistake ye?
But the comment I replied to didn’t just deny the confirmation that AI is thinking, it also denied that AI “thinks” at all. That puts him in a position of making an unproven claim. In fact, he is directly making that claim, while the article he is denying only alludes to saying that LLM “thinks” like a human. That makes his unproven claim even more egregious than the article’s.
I wasn’t calling it thinking. I’m saying people claiming it’s not is just jumping the gun. It’s also funny you’re simply claiming I am pro AI without needing any proof. This is what I meant when I said people who are anti-AI should strive to be better than the AI they criticise. Acting based on non-facts makes you no better than AI with their hallucinations.
Its also funny that you’re calling me out when I’m just mirroring what the other guy is doing to make a point. He’s acting like his is the correct opinion, yet you only calling me out because the guy is on your side of the argument. That’s simply a bad faith argument on your part.
I see the misunderstanding, sorry. You’re still in the wrong though. while you weren’t calling it thinking, the article certainly was. THAT’S why we’re saying it’s not. we’re doing what you said we should, but it’s the inverse, and you call it anti-AI. the jackass who wrote that article is jumping the gun and we’re saying “how tf can you call it thinking” and i see your reply calling that anti AI, seems like a reasonable mistake ye?
But the comment I replied to didn’t just deny the confirmation that AI is thinking, it also denied that AI “thinks” at all. That puts him in a position of making an unproven claim. In fact, he is directly making that claim, while the article he is denying only alludes to saying that LLM “thinks” like a human. That makes his unproven claim even more egregious than the article’s.