Neal delivers. I recently learned that viruses are not considered living being, but I'm nevertheless happy they're included here because they're both relevant and interesting in this context.

Not that I'm qualified to reply, but I think this is debated. I seem to recall reading in "Immune" by Philipp Dettmer that there is an argument that a virus is analogous to a spore stage of life, and the virus begins "living" when it plants itself inside a cell full of "nutrients", sheds it's skin and begins consuming and replicating.

Viruses are to life as LLMs are to reasoning: they often behave like their category expects but not for the same reasons as the genuine article.

They do have genes and are subject to natural selection so to say the least they are a clear borderline case.

From what I remember from undergrad the reason they're not life is that they lack their own metabolism, they use the metabolism of host cells. And metabolism needs to be a constant thing, they don't have any when outside a cell.

Hey, if they originated naturally and interact with the environment and reproduce, they are living beings. Mere human taxonomists can't just "classify" away the fact.

I was taught in school they were something in between.