I really dislike these non-sequitur arguments of "LLMs do not reason, because <detail on how they work>", as if a detail on how they work unequivocally proves the impossibility of reasoning.
I've noticed that on HackerNews about 80% of all debates or discussions where people disagree, boils down to a disagreement about the definition of a word.
feel free to extend to other contexts. It was basically Socrates' argument.
That is certainly true, for some definition of 80%.
I see. Well, I claim my pet rock can think. What do you mean it doesn't have brain cells, what kind of argument is that?
My pet silicon rock was processed by TSMC in a design by Nvidia, and does this trick called inference that very much does look like thinking. Who made yours?
I deem your rock to be disqualified on the basis of its performance clearly having been enhanced by doping.
"This alien super-computer made from entangled iron atoms clearly is not thinking because it doesn't have neurons"