This is false. Cognitive states do not require language and language is an insufficient model of any cognitive state.

The follow-ons for the rest of your so-called resolution should be clear.

You are being tedious. I obviously have done this and I disagree with you. Saying that X is logically true and Y is logically false is not a demonstration of those baseless assertions. This is not helpful, what you're saying isn't true, and what I'm saying is backed up by the wikipedia article. The bit you quote is simply stating that most literature about the Chinese Room is an attempt to refute it, which is obvious, because the people who are convinced see no need to publish saying so. The fact that people keep publishing means that they have not yet succeeded in refuting it.

Or I can simply say this: you've made a mistake in your logic. Actually, the Chinese Room argument is correct. Since you won't explicate your logic, neither will I.

Have a good day.

I disagree with this pretty strongly, because I don't think you're correct that I don't have the ability to distinguish frequencies of photons hitting my retina. We have a lot of tools that can determine the frequency of light and I can use those on any source of light that I wish to measure that may hit my retinas.

If you ask an LLM how many Rs are in strawberry, it wouldn't think like this. It would confidently state that there are two Rs. Even though it "knows" that it can write a python script to count the number of Rs in strawberry, it doesn't do that. Why not? Is it maybe because it isn't intelligent? Yeah, you can prompt an LLM to write a script to count the number of Rs in strawberry, but that's a use of your intelligence, not the LLM's.

I completely disagree. I think if you think these things are amazing, your dreams are incredibly limited and boring.

I remember the first time I talked to a chatbot. Not an LLM, just a regular chatbot, like ELIZA or any other dumb bot.

For a few seconds, it felt magical, like I was talking to a computer that understood me, as it made replies that were sensible to what I was saying. Then it said something incredibly stupid and jarring that made no sense, and that took the magic away. Oh, this is just a dumb computer program.

I remember the first time I talked to an LLM-powered chatbot. It was the exact same thing, except the magic feeling lasted a tiny little bit longer and was a tiny little more convincing. But it went away in the exact same way, for the exact same reason. Once you've seen the emperor without clothes, nothing brings back the magic.

I don't think it makes any sense to say that consciousness is a cognitive capacity. Cognition is one of many qualia that compose the experience of consciousness from the inside, but it's not the only one, and I can easily imagine consciousness without cognition at all.

So I don't think it's weird at all to say that LLMs can be good models of some cognitive capacities (particularly the ones embodied in language) but lacks others, and overall lacks consciousness.

But you don't need to "head over to Reddit", this is happening on HN too, with both content and comments.

I wouldn't say that most Reddit or Hacker News comments rise to the level of something that I "want to read", though.

I don't think either of these sentences is true.

> Now that programming itself is on the chopping block, suddenly some moral line has been crossed?

I didn't say anything about a moral line, I just said that there are a lot of programmers who are very excited to remove themselves from being employable. I didn't even say whether I thought that was good or bad!

I don't think anyone who works in product management at any company in 2026 understands this, so you're not alone.

I don't understand how you can say that Apple is more pro-consumer than Microsoft here, considering that Microsoft guarantees that no matter whether the vendor is unwilling, out of business, dead, or otherwise unavailable, you can still run your software. Apple says you need to go find someone to put tens to hundreds of man-hours into updating software from god-knows-when, and if you can't do that, you can just go fuck yourself.

You say yourself, Microsoft is willing to put in the work to ensure that their customers will be able to run their binaries forever. Apple spits in your face and you thank them for it.

The factories that replaced shoemakers actually produced physical shoes that real humans wore. What is your AI producing, other than garbage bug-filled software that no one wants or needs? What real-life human problems is it solving?

In the same paragraph as the genetics company, they also mention an "AI-powered basketball hoop" and "AI-powered lasers that – somehow – protect women from predators on crowded underground platforms." Very reasonable stuff that you forgot to mention.

No offense, but this sounds like you just don't like anything about writing code and you don't have any LLM superpowers, because those are the technical skills that make you good at being a software engineer regardless of whether you're using an agent.

> Code is not holy. In 100 years people will look at our ephemeral artifacts as silly little things. Treat it that way today. Means to an end.

I don't give a shit about code as an artifact. Writing code to solve problems is fun. Prompting an AI to solve problems makes me want to eat a gun. That's a real difference and it's not something I can just change about myself.

1. Because the experience of interacting with AI is miserable. I like writing code. I don't like finding the magic incantation that gets the machine to write the correct code. I don't like correcting the machine when it gets things wrong. I don't like any of this, it's awful and I would never have gone into this field if someone had told me that it would be like this one day.

2. I cannot condone the means by which these tools were created, which is, as far as I am concerned, theft. I think it's unethical to use them at all, because they were created unethically. I dislike using stolen work, I think it's wrong, and I think everyone who uses it is making the world worse and normalizing theft. If continuing in my career means that I have to compromise my ethics, I wouldn't do it even if I loved this stuff, and see point (1).

3. Is anyone going to pay me more for my "more valuable" skills? Doesn't seem like it, engineering salaries on the whole are going down right now. You can believe they'll go up eventually if you like, but there's no evidence that will happen, or that it's happening. If my employer captures all the value, why should I care whether I'm creating more of it?