Inconvertibly demonstrating a dramatic failure in its, and many of its kind's, ability to reason.
You act as if statistical processes can’t ever scale into reasoning, despite the fact that humans themselves are gradient-trained statistical learners over evolutionary and developmental timescales.
> Reasoning is not difficult to define
> Reasoning exists on a spectrum
> statistical processes [can] scale into reasoning
It seems like quite a descent here, starting with the lofty heights of condemning skeptics as "cretins" and insisting the definition is easy... down to what sounds like the introduction to a flavor of panpsychism [0], where even water flowing downhill is a "statistical process" which at enough scale would be "reasoning".
I don't think that's a faithful match to what other people mean [1] when they argue LLMs don't "reason."
I very strongly agree with you. :)