The actual paper is linked above, and of course it’s bad. The gates are
awesome ofc, but the paper’s philosophy is arrogant and uninformed (sorry Mr. Wynter!). And that’s what this is — including a video game example in your philosophy paper doesn’t make it a CS paper!
Basically it uses the cool gates alongside vacuous statements like this…
Hence, the purported anthropomorphic attributes of LLMs are empirically non-unique: although some properties (e.g., responses to prompts) could remain invariant, others, such as the interpretation of their perceived behaviour, might change with the substrate.
…to disguise the underlying dogma, which serves as an unsupported conclusion: humans are assumed to be completely entirely unique in every way whatsoever, and any equations of parts of our wonderful ensouled meat sacks to parts of the wicked language machines
must be supported by a proof that A != A.
Which, y’know… is a tough one!
Basically it uses the cool gates alongside vacuous statements like this…
…to disguise the underlying dogma, which serves as an unsupported conclusion: humans are assumed to be completely entirely unique in every way whatsoever, and any equations of parts of our wonderful ensouled meat sacks to parts of the wicked language machines must be supported by a proof that A != A.Which, y’know… is a tough one!