Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we transcribe your brain into a simulation and give it a tickrate, you will be just autocomplete too. The underlying mechanisms for producing language are very different, in the same way birds and airplanes have different mechanisms for flying.
No, not really. If the old "birds and airplanes" or "swimmers and submarines" metaphors were valid, then language alone wouldn't be enough to encode and embody reasoning capabilities, as has recently become evident. LLMs are more like human minds than we are willing to admit. Such reluctance is perhaps the least surprising aspect of any of this.
Which is actually an important part of the Navier-Stokes conversation. Solving hard problems expands the vocabulary. The problems are hard, illustrating a region we know where the language is insufficient. So the point isn't so much to solve the specific problem, but to figure out how to discuss problems like it.
But there's a big difference between talking about something in an extremely convoluted manner then people struggle to understand and inventing a new word that simplifies our discussions.
Though this is grossly oversimplified. It's a HN comment, not a lecture on metamathematics or metaml