> Yes, but this applies to any media channel or just other human minds.

You can hold a person responsible, first and foremost. But I am so tired of this strawman argument; it's unfalsifiable but also stupid because if you interact with real people, you immediately know the difference between people and these language models. And if you can't I feel sorry for you, because that's more than likely a mental illness.

So no I can't "prove" that people aren't also just statistical probability machines and that every time you ask someone to explain their thought process they're not just bullshitting, because no, I can't know what goes on in their brain nor measure it. And some people do bullshit. But I operate in the real world with real people every day and if they _are_ just biological statistical probability machines, then they're a _heck_ of a lot more advanced than the synthetic variety. So much so that I consider them wholly different, akin to the difference between a simple circuit with a single switch vs. the SoC of a modern smartphone.

I actually agree with you that LLMs are so rigid and shallow as even a typical person appears as an ocean to them in a conversation.

I just think Stallman is this broken-clock purist that offered no specific practical advice in this case. I’d be more interested in what he thinks in LLMs one-shotting humans with their tokens (LLM psychopathy?) as they come on the scene worldwide.