Describing a glorified autocomplete as “thinking” is wrong on many levels; it devalues human consciousness, it attributes to a software tool qualities that it does not possess, and has implications for the entire AI industry.
If we are to believe an LLM is at least sentient and intelligent on par with an octopus, much less a human, then we have a moral imperative to fight for LLMs to be recognized as protected sentient thinking beings with awareness and agency and admit that AI industry is built on systematic abuse of those beings.
Of course, no one does it, because it would be ridiculous. It’s time to admit that people who insist that LLMs “think” are simply trying to make ML seem mysterious and magical in an ill thought through (because see above) attempt to attract more VC money.
If we are to believe an LLM is at least sentient and intelligent on par with an octopus, much less a human, then we have a moral imperative to fight for LLMs to be recognized as protected sentient thinking beings with awareness and agency and admit that AI industry is built on systematic abuse of those beings.
Of course, no one does it, because it would be ridiculous. It’s time to admit that people who insist that LLMs “think” are simply trying to make ML seem mysterious and magical in an ill thought through (because see above) attempt to attract more VC money.