There is no philosophical difference. It's like asking if Usain Bolt is really a fast runner, or if he just seems like it because he has long legs and powerful muscles.
I think that's a poor a comparison, but I understand your point. I just disagree about there being no philosophical difference. I'd argue the difference is philosophical, rather than factual.
You also indirectly answered my initial question -- so thanks!
I'm not sure I'm educated (or rested) enough to answer that in a coherent manner, certainly not in a comment thread typing on mobile. So I won't waste your time babbling.
I don't disagree they produce astonishing responses but the nuance of why it's producing that output matters to me.
For example, with regard to social mores, I think a good way to summarize my hang up is that my understanding is LLMs just pattern match their way to approximations.
That to me is different from actually possessing an understanding, even though the outcome may be the same.
I can't help but draw comparisons to my autistic masking.
