My point precisely. Those are all vague terms. Saying that "neural nerworks do not think" is as meaningless as any equivalent (or opposite) statement on any other system including any number of neurons, a whole brain or a person.
It's all semantics.
It's all semantics.
Depends on what you mean by thinking in that particular case.
In my opinion what LLMs do is close enough to thinking for some definition of the word.
And, by the way, I think there's no need to be unpleasant to state your point.
The thing that's special about these operations is that they deal with immaterial concepts. What's right? What's good? What's true? And so on. Computers have never achieved this and they never will, because they are only material arrangements, and so can only handle things on the material level. The human mind is clearly not reducible to that, because it can handle purely immaterial concepts.
Given that, we could never agree. But that's fine.
And by the way, I actually hope you're right.