Discussing whether models "think" is impossibly confounded by conflicting definitions of that it means to "think".
All this noise about "thinking" isn't really about what models can do, it's mostly about what what every participant in the conversation privately thinks "thinking" means, but we disagree because we're not all using the word the same way.
So when you admonish someone to say "there is no thinking in these models" while not clearly defining exactly what you mean by "thinking", your assertion that models don't do it are meaningless at best, and false or deceptive at worst.
Comments
Discussing whether models "think" is impossibly confounded by conflicting definitions of that it means to "think".
All this noise about "thinking" isn't really about what models can do, it's mostly about what what every participant in the conversation privately thinks "thinking" means, but we disagree because we're not all using the word the same way.
So when you admonish someone to say "there is no thinking in these models" while not clearly defining exactly what you mean by "thinking", your assertion that models don't do it are meaningless at best, and false or deceptive at worst.
I'm responding to a post, citing a particular research method, which the author claims six times to display the model's thinking.
You can dismiss the criticism with pedantics about what he means by 'thinking', but what I said is very clear if you read the underlying paper.