so you understood neurons better than neuroscientists
No, but I have no idea what that statement has to do with artificial neurons.
You have missed the part where no scientist worth their name claims to be able to fully explain how consciousness works and whether or not it affects our decision making.
And you have missed the part where I explicitly mentioned that LLMs are NOT “sapient” or “sentient”, which would preclude “consciousness” also.
Okay, I think we’re done here. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Says the person using colloquial definitions and applying them to a field of active research.
The facts don’t care about your opinions. A basic program with hardcoded decision trees is “intelligent”. An LLM can do more at a dynamic (and probabilistic) level. Therefore, LLMs fit the academic definition of intelligence.
Even the general word definition:
the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations.
I can point an LLM to my code that’s never been seen by an LLM and it can read it, explain to me exactly what it does, point out bugs, and even give suggestions on areas that can be improved.
Is it “smart”? Debatable.
Is it conscious, sapient, sentient, or “alive”? Hard no. And that was never the argument.
Edit: autocorrect speaking mistake