> I'm not convinced that "actual logic and thought" aren't just about inferring what comes next statistically based on experience.

Often they are the exact opposite. Entire fields of math and science talk about this. Causation vs correlation, confirmation bias, base rate fallacy, bayesian reasoning, sharp shooter fallacy, etc.

All of those were developed because “inferring from experience” leads you to the wrong conclusion.

Exactly. Lots can be explained just with more abstract predictors, plus some mechanisms for stochastic rollout and memory.

Is this just Internet smart contrarianism or a real thing? Are logic gates in a digital circuit just behaving statistically according to their experience?

Then the machines still need a more sophisticated "experience" compared to what they have currently.

You know, you might really enjoy consumer behaviour. When you get into the depths of it, you’ll end up running straight into that idea like you’re doing a 100 metre dash in a 90 metre gym. It’s quite interesting how arguably the best funded group under the psychology umbrella runs directly into this. One of my favourite examples is how heuristics will lead otherwise reasonable people to make decisions that are not in their interest.

Communicating is usually about inferring. I dont think token to token. And I don’t think “well statistically I could say ‘and’ next but I will say ‘also’ instead to give my speech some flash”. If I decided on swapping a word I would have made my decision long ago, not in the moment. Thought and logic are not me pouring through my brain finding a statistical path to any answer. Often I stop and say “I dont know”.