That would have had more weight if you haven't just described junior developer behavior beforehand.
"LLMs can't think" is anthropocentric cope. It's the old AI effect all over again - people would rather die than admit that there's very little practical difference between their own "thinking" and that of an AI chatbot.
Effectively telling that junior developers "don't have brains" is in very bad taste and offensively wrong.
> people would rather die than admit that there's very little practical difference between their own "thinking" and that of an AI chatbot.
Would you like to elaborate on this?
I was told that McDonalds employees would have been replaced by now, self-driving cars will be driving the streets and new medicines would have been discovered.
It's been a couple of years that "AI" is out, and no singularity yet.
Setting the bar for "AI" at "singularity" is a bit like setting requirements for "fusion" at "creating a star more powerful than the Sun". Very good for dismissing all existing fusion research, but not any good for actually understanding fusion.
If we had two humans, one with IQ 80 and another with IQ 120, we wouldn't say that one of them isn't "thinking". It's just that one of them is much worse at "thinking" than the other. Which is where a lot of LLMs are currently at. They are, for all intents and purposes, thinking. Are they any good at it though? Depends on what you want from them. Sometimes they're good enough, and sometimes they aren't.
It's surprising you say that, considering we don't actually understand the mechanisms behind how humans think.
We do know that human brains are so good at patterns, they'll even see patterns and such that aren't actually there.
LLMs are a pile of statistics that can mimic human speech patterns if you don't tax them too hard. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just Clever Hans-ing themselves.
I see no reason to think that humans are anything more than "a pile of statistics that can mimic human speech patterns if you don't tax them too hard". Humans can get offended when you point it out though. It's too dismissive of their unique human gift of intelligence that a chatbot clearly doesn't have.
We do not, in fact, "understand the outcomes well enough" lol.
I don't really care if you want to have an AI waifu or whatever. I'm pointing out that you're vastly underestimating the complexity behind human brains and cognition.
And that complex human brain of yours is attributing behaviors to a statistical model that the model does not, in fact, possess.
For example, what relevance is neuroscience here? Artificial neural nets and real brains are entirely different substrates. The “neural net” part is a misnomer. We shouldn’t expect them to work the same way.
What’s relevant is the psychology literature. Do artificial minds behave like real minds? In many ways they do — LLMs exhibit the same sorts fallacies and biases as human minds. Not exactly 1:1, but surprisingly close.
LLMs exhibit these biases and fallacies because they regurgitate the biases and fallacies that were written by the humans that produced their training data.
Math, logical reasoning, etc. are cultural knowledge, not architecturally built-in. These biases and fallacies arise because of how we process higher order concepts via language-like mechanisms. It should not be surprising that LLMs, which mimic human-like natural language abilities (at the culture/learned level of abstraction, if not computation substrate) exhibit the same sorts of errors.
It is so weird when people pull self driving cars out as some kind of counter example. Just because something doesn't happen on the most optimistic time scale, doesn't mean it isn't happening. They just happen slowly and then all at once.