yeah you know, that concept we've never been able to define using language, making heavy use of the human experience which can also not be captured in language (proof: how bad LLMs are at poetry)

the question is, when comparing a human and a large language model, whether the intellect (that cannot be captured in language) is different from anything the language model can actually do (e.g. language)

the answer to this seems quite obvious to me, and I would actually posit that the onus is on the other side, to prove they are even remotely similar

maybe people think that the voice in their heads is what is doing the thinking? is that the confusion here?