I think the medium where information transformation happened was for many the only artificial line between what they called processing and what they called thinking. The caveat for others being that thinking is what you do with active awareness, and intuition is what you do otherwise.

That caveat to me is the useful distinction still to ponder.

My point of contention with equivalences to Human thinking still at this point is that AI seems to know more about the world with specificity than any human ever will. Yet it still fails sometimes to be consistent and continuous at thinking from that world where a human wouldn't. Maybe i'm off for this but that feels odd to me if the thinking is truly equivalent.

The problem is that we use the same words for different things, which I think is risky. We often draw parallels simply because we use terms like “thinking,” “reasoning,” or “memory.”

Most of these comparisons focus on problem-solving or pattern recognition, but humans are capable of much more than that.

What the author left out is that there are many well-known voices in neuroscience who hold completely different views from the one that was cited.

I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what turns out to be true.