Dumbest possible reason proffered as justification for good advice.

This kind of reply is so silly without specifying precisely which LLM was used.

It's like complaining about your car being unreliable without specifying that your car is a Fiat Strada.

And the Trump administration's enshittification of literally everything continues unabated...

Funny thing is, there are “gravity ‘skeptics’” in the sense that there are cranks who deny gravity, just as there are cranks who deny vaccines, climate science, and germ theory. The big difference is, we haven’t put the “scientists are wrong about so-called gravity” cranks in charge of NASA!

I can name many prominent cognitive scientists who disagree with your "consensus". For example, Pylyshyn, Fodor, Pinker, just to name 3.

Anyway, 'helliongamer' is such a snowflake that he/she blocked me for disagreeing, so I'm not sure this is worth pursuing without their presence.

Not much of an argument. If you had, for example, a person in a bubble who had never been outside, their model of the world would be entirely word-based.

Two words: John Yoo

I didn't say "it had no functional effect on the outcome".

If you take a look at the philpapers surveys, you will see there is no consensus on *anything* in philosophy, so it's particularly absurd to assert consensus on this topic that is very, very widely disputed.

There's no consensus.

3. Objecting that LLM reasoning is different from human reasoning, even if you're right, is an example of the "planes don't fly because they don't flap their wings like birds" fallacy. In computer science we understand that many different algorithms can be used to achieve the same result.
2/2

Congrats, three fallacies in one response.
1. Dismissing them as "just" anything is Leibniz's fallacy.
2. How do you know that people's brains don't use statistical models? Modern understanding of the brain depends a lot on prediction. Read Andy Clark, _Surfing Uncertainty_.
1/2

So your assertion is that "thinking cannot be done without the perception of the passage of time"? An interesting claim, but I don't see any evidence for it.

It's just a matter of understanding the definitions. You dismiss it as a "mathematical technicality", but in mathematics the definitions actually matter. If the output varies based on random input (as it did in my example of returning (y,b)), then it's not deterministic.

Well, my colleague Chris Eliasmith has a Ph. D. in philosophy from the philosophy-neuroscience-psychology program at Washington U, to name just one who disagrees.

Reversing the burden of proof is always a popular method of avoiding scrutiny