There's no serious claim that needs refuting.

I don't think any serious person thinks LLMs work like the human brain.

People claiming this online aren't going around murdering their spouses like you'd delete an old LLama model from your hard drive.

I'm not sure why people keep posting these sorts of claims they can't possibly actually believe if we look at their demonstrable real life behavior.

▲

solumunus 2 days ago | parent [-]

We’re obviously more advanced than an LLM, but to claim that human beings simply generate output based on inputs and context (environment, life experience) is not silly.

> People claiming this online aren't going around murdering their spouses like you'd delete an old LLama model from your hard drive.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here.

▲

staticman2 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm saying you'd object to being treated like an LLM and don't really have conviction when you make these claims.

I'd also say stringing together A.I. buzzwords (input output) to describe humans isn't really an argument so much as what philosophers call a category error.

	▲	solumunus 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That I wouldn’t treat a human like an LLM is completely irrelevant to the topic. Input and output are not AI buzzwords, they’re fundamental terms in computation. The argument that human beings are computational has been alive in philosophy since the 1940’s brother…