Hacker News Reader

Your explanation is as useful as describing the behaviour of an algorithm by describing what the individual electrons are doing. While technically correct, doesn't provide much insight or predictive power on what will happen.

Just because you can give a reductionist explanation to a phenomenon, it doesn't mean that it's the best explanation.

View on HN

Then give a better one.

Your objection boils down to "sure you're right, but there's more to it, man"

So, what more is there to it?

Unless there is a physical agent that receives its instructions from an LLM, the prediction that the OP described is correct.

I don't have to have a better explanation to smell the hubris in OP's. I claim ignorance while OP speaks with confidence of an invention that took the world by surprise 3 years ago. Do you see the problem in this and the possibility that you might be wrong?

Of course we might both be wrong. We probably are. In the long run, all of us are.

It's not very helpful to point that out, especially if you can't do it with specifics so that people can correct themselves and move closer to the truth.

Your contribution is destructive, not constructive.

Pointing out that OP is using the wrong level of abstraction to explain a new phenomenon is not only useful but one of the ways in which science progresses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com