We have reason to believe consciousness cannot be replicated via computation, and reason to suspect consciousness is an important aspect of cognition. Now, what reason do you have for believing intelligence could be replicated computationally?

I did not express my opinion or "worldview." I was simply responding to this:

> exclude LLMs with CoT from the category of intelligent systems with certainty

Why do you think that intelligence of a Turing-complete system trained on human data can be likened to a Russell's teapot?

At least, don't you think that the recent mathematical results of LLMs are a bit like a glimpse of something teapot-shaped in the orbit? (which makes it not a Russell's teapot, which. by definition, can't be observed).

To me, it's an expected progression of ANNs' approximation of human cognitive processes. The universal approximation theorem guaranties the existence of such ANNs barring the super-Turing or quantum superiority of the brain.

> Why do you think that intelligence of a Turing-complete system trained on human data can be likened to a Russell's teapot?

I don't? You are presenting opinions as if they are mine, but they are not.

I'm trying to understand what's going on in the head of people who are certain that LLMs can't be intelligent. And it proves to be a daunting task. Have you tried to reflect on your certainty? Where it comes from?