> 6. Human performance on a task isn’t an upper bound on LLM performance

Is that true? Because LLMs are trained on the work of human: a LLM that learned all of the content of the articles would at best yield output equal to that of the human writing.

The reasons the author gives seem unfounded to me:

> First, they are trained on far more data than any human sees

If the human writer has access to google (everyone in modern society) this point is moot.

> In addition, they are often given additional training using reinforcement learning before being deployed.

If this is human in the loop RL, then the upper bound would still be the human training it. If it isn't, refer to #1.