I don't understand why we can't look at the potential, or even current, capabilities of these LLMs and have a real conversation about how it might impact things.
Yet so many folks here just confidently dismiss it.
"It doesn't even think!" -- OK, define thinking?
"It doesn't create novel ideas!" OK -- what do most devs do every day?
"It is wrong sometimes!" OK -- is it wrong more or less often than an average dev?
That's not what "the science says", it's the title of an article that someone put on arxiv.
The article has no theoretical results, just a shoddy empirical demonstration of... something. The author claims that the something is an LLM simulating a Turing machine. But, is it? Really?
Well, here's how the article concludes:
>> Hopefully the reader has been convinced by this point.
"Hopefully" is not how you show computational universality of a neural net architecture. This is how:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002200008...
i.e. with maths. That article you link to is a bunch of hooey.
Yes, this is arguing semantics but in this particular case, semantics is the whole point.