> These models aren’t thinking.
They are for any definition of the word that makes any kind of sense. I'm sure you have a contorted definition that magically only includes humans though...
Sure? If humans happen to be doing something that LLMs are not, then should the answer change to accommodate your disdain?
The models are simulating thinking, if the fidelity is good enough for you - great!
> for any definition of the word
For "thinking" here we mean "assessing a representation of an object". That, or equivalent, is required to be reliable. So it is fundamental and critical.