Comment by staticman2

"the argument that human beings are computational has been alive in philosophy since the 1940’s brother"

I recently read a little philosophy on this, to say humans are "computational" you first have to define what you mean by "computational". Depending on the definition you employ, you are either making a wacky claim, a controversial claim, or a noncontroversial claim.

Since you provide no definition, you are saying nothing at all.

The discourse that comes up in AI topics seems more glib language games than actual concern over human nature, computational or otherwise.

>That I wouldn’t treat a human like an LLM is completely irrelevant to the topic.

The fact you wouldn't treat a human like an LLM suggests your constant claim of similarity is not something you actually believe.