You realize parent said "This would be an interesting way to test proposition X" and you responded with "X is false because I say say", right?

Yes. That is correct. If I told you I planned on going outside this evening to test whether the sun sets in the east, the best response would be to let me know ahead of time that my hypothesis is wrong.

"Proposition X" does not need testing. We already know X is categorically false because we know how LLMs are programmed, and not a single line of that programming pertains to thinking (thinking in the human sense, not "thinking" in the LLM sense which merely uses an anthromorphized analogy to describe a script that feeds back multiple prompts before getting the final prompt output to present to the user). In the same way that we can reason about the correctness of an IsEven program without writing a unit test that inputs every possible int32 to "prove" it, we can reason about the fundamental principles of an LLM's programming without coming up with ridiculous tests. In fact the proposed test itself is less eminently verifiable than reasoning about correctness; it could be easily corrupted by, for instance, incorrectly labelled data in the training dataset, which could only be determined by meticulously reviewing the entirety of the dataset.

The only people who are serious about suggesting that LLMs could possibly 'think' are the people who are committing fraud on the scale of hundreds of billions of dollars (good for them on finding the all-time grift!) and people who don't understand how they're programmed, and thusly are the target of the grift. Granted, given that the vast majority of humanity are not programmers, and even fewer are programmers educated on the intricacies of ML, the grift target pool numbers in the billions.