Searle is an idiot. In Searle's argument, the translating entity will be the full system executing the translation "program", not the person running the program.

And you failed to understand my argument. You are a Turing machine. I am a Turing machine. The LLM in a loop is a Turing machine.

Unless you can show evidence that unlike the LLMs* we can execute more than the Turing computable, the theoretical limits on our reasoning are exactly the same as that of the LLM.

Absent any evidence at all that we can solve anything outside of the Turing computable, or that any computable function exists outside the Turing computable, the burden of proof is firmly in those making such an outrageous assumption to produce at least a single example of such a computation.

This argumebt doesn't mean any given LLM is capable of reasoning at the level of a human on its own any more than it means a given person is able to translate Chinese on its own, but it does mean there's no basis in any evidence for claiming no LLM can be made to reason just like a human any more than there's a basis for claiming no person can learn Chinese.

> When we claim someone reasons logically we usually don't imagine they randomly throw ideas at the wall and then consult outputs to determine if they reasoned logically

This isn't how LLMs work either, so this is entirely irrelevant.