I don't understand how this isn't going back on your earlier claim that complexity doesn't equal intelligence?

"unknown" does not equal "complex." "complex" does not equal "known." What we know of "brains", regardless of its complexity, in no way parallels Markov chains. What we know of LLMs, on the other hand, is entirely Markov chains. The Venn diagram of "unknown" and "complex" are two separate circles; the Venn diagram of "known" and "LLMs" is one circle.

Our lack of understanding of how the brain works doesn't provide any evidence of it possessing some supernatural faculty that a computer couldn't (with currently non-existent but feasible tech) replicate.

Not saying it does. Saying you can't draw any parallels between the two because they have nothing in common. I've said that three times three different ways.

And your fourth claim here is demonstrably false: even ChatGPT is based on a neural net.

Your link says "neural net" twice. It refers to lookup tables for the rest of its length. Here's IBM to clarify. That Wolfram article you didn't read lists "neural" 170 times, by way of comparison - but it actually explains how they work, and how the "neural network" of large language models is a LUT.

I've been presuming you're discussing this in good faith because you said you were. You're making me doubt the veracity of that statement because no matter how many times I point out that this isn't about "beliefs" you keep using yours to underpin your logic. We were talking about Atlas because thenewgreen brought up Atlas. Before you joined the conversation I pointed out that the model does not learn once it has been trained. You keep skipping over this. And speaking as a human in a world full of humans, I'm uninterested in a new set of ethics that does not prioritize humans.

Would you like to try again in a non-combative way? Because I can have this conversation ad nauseum. But I have to choose to do so.