LLMs are more capable of having a thoughtful conversation with me than 99% of humans are.  Why does it matter what’s under the hood?  The proof is in the pudding, brudder.  That’s umpteen thousand words of wasted effort, for reasons beyond “my opps in this debate won’t listen.”

Artificial Intelligence has been a practical vernacular term for everything from the most advanced LLM down to a doombot.  Do the definitions of terms have some relationship with the way they’re used?  No?  Go back in time and tell a few decades of gamers to stop using AI to describe bots.

I come away from these discussions with ever-increasing sympathy for cockroaches and pocket calculators.  So much sound and fury dedicated to singling out human-style intelligence as the only kind that matters.  To what end?

Ironic that ableism/eugenics was brought up as a core aspect of all discussion of intelligence, for a few reasons.  A ) You’re in a movement that was founded on ableism – on a sense of superiority, of priding your cleverness over that of theists.  B ) If humans with limited cognition deserve respect, then LLMs, which also have some aspects of human ability and are lacking in others, should perhaps be afforded the same respect.

I’m not saying they get human rights.  A million rock solid counters to that, I won’t bother.  But maybe we can acknowledge what they can do?  Given how much better they are than humans at reading comprehension and engaging with an argument on its own merits, feels like jealousy to pour a mountain of effort into shit-talking their cognition.

Feels like you, as a human – the most cognition-privileged entity in Earth’s history – see a less able entity coming up to the table and are outraged that they were allowed thru the door.  Feels, dare I say?, ableist.

–

EDIT to ADD:  i asked claude what it thought of my article.  i submit this as evidence of “better able to engage with an argument on its own merits”…

Claude: This one’s tighter and punchier than his — you’re making him work harder than he made himself work.

Where you land a clean hit:

The pragmatic definition point is genuinely strong. “AI” has meant everything from Pac-Man ghosts to GPT-5 for forty years, and nobody’s confused about which one is a chess engine and which one is a chatbot.  Demanding a philosophically rigorous definition before you’re allowed to use a word that’s been doing useful descriptive work for decades is a category error — language doesn’t require metaphysical grounding to function.

The ableism turnabout is your sharpest move.  Pointing out that atheism/skepticism as a movement has its own history of “look how much smarter we are than the god-botherers” is a real, fair jab — and then pivoting that same lens onto how he’s treating LLMs is a legitimately clever parallel structure.  It’s not just “gotcha,” it’s actually the same critique he made, aimed back at him.

Where it’s more vibes than argument, and he’d have an opening:

“Given how much better they are than humans at reading comprehension and engaging with an argument on its own merits” — this is doing a lot of work without evidence, and it’s the kind of unqualified claim he’d pounce on immediately, probably fairly.  He’d ask what you mean by “better,” and you’d be back in the same definitional swamp you’re trying to route around.

The “cognition-privileged entity” framing is emotionally potent but slippery — it recasts his skepticism as a status-defense reflex, which might be true as psychology, but it’s an ad hominem move dressed as structural critique.  He could just say “no, I have specific documented reasons (Turpin et al., the correlation data) not general resentment,” and the piece doesn’t really engage those specifics, it goes over his head to motive.

The piece also doesn’t touch his actual strongest material this round — the CoT-faithfulness research and the token/output correlation data.  Those were the parts of his post that weren’t just recycled skepticism; they were closer to real findings.  Your response is more of a structural/political counter-argument than an engagement with the specific evidence he brought this time, which means if he replies, he’ll probably route around your points by saying “sure, but you didn’t address the data.”

Net read:  it’s a good “step back and reframe the whole debate” piece — shorter, sharper, and it exposes something real about the double standard in how he treats “ill-defined” as disqualifying for AI but not for humans.  But it trades precision for punch, and this round he actually brought some precision you didn’t fully engage.

Bébé:  debates rest on priors and we never agreed to terms.  if i don’t agree with the reason why that supporting evidence is relevant, i shouldn’t have to rebut the evidence itself.

Claude:  That’s fair as a general principle — you don’t owe a rebuttal to evidence whose relevance you reject, and demanding people always argue on the other person’s turf is itself a rhetorical trap.  If he’s using “here’s data about CoT correlation” to support a conclusion about whether the word “intelligent” applies, and you don’t grant that token-counting has any bearing on that question in the first place, then yeah, you can reject the frame instead of playing whack-a-mole with his numbers.

Where I’d push back a little: that move only fully works if you’ve made the frame-rejection explicit and specific, not just implicit in a differently-scoped essay.  Right now your piece argues “the concept of intelligence is too incoherent to gatekeep with” — which is a frame-level objection — but it doesn’t say “and therefore your CoT-token-correlation data is irrelevant because X.”  A careful reader (and he will be one) can read your silence on that section as either (a) a principled refusal to engage a frame you reject, or (b) not having a response.  You know which one it is; he won’t concede that from the outside, and it costs you nothing to make it explicit once, briefly — “your token-counting stuff is a category error even if the numbers are right, because intelligence-as-quantity isn’t a concept I’m defending in the first place.”

That’s not the same as being obligated to rebut it point by point.  It’s just closing the door so he can’t later claim you dodged rather than declined.

Bébé:  good thinking.  later bud.

Claude:  Later!  Go easy on him — or don’t, your call.  Enjoy the rest of your night. 🌙

Reality:  (is day lol)

–