> it could never, for example, invent a game like chess or a social construct like a legal system. Those require motivations like "boredom", "being social", having a "need for safety".
That's creativity which is a different question from thinking.
Humans invent new data, humans observe things and create new data. That's where all the stuff the LLMs are trained on came from.
> That's creativity which is a different question from thinking
It's not really though. The process is the same or similar enough don't you think?
What LLMs do is using what they have _seen_ to come to a _statistical_ conclusion. Just like a complex statistical weather forecasting model. I have never heard anyone argue that such models would "know" about weather phenomena and reason about the implications to come to a "logical" conclusion.
In the same way a human might produce a range of answers to the same question, so humans are also drawing from a theoretical statistical distribution when you talk to them.
It's just a mathematical way to describe an agent, whether it's an LLM or human.
LLMs aren't good at either, imo. They are rote regurgitation machines, or at best they mildly remix the data they have in a way that might be useful
They don't actually have any intelligence or skills to be creative or logical though
Yes, humans are also capable of learning in a similar fashion and imitating, even extrapolating from a learned function. But I wouldn't call that intelligent, thinking behavior, even if performed by a human.
But no human would ever perform like that, without trying to intuitively understand the motivations of the humans they learned from, and naturally intermingling the performance with their own motivations.