Yann LeCun warns AI tech is marching into dead end
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The language may be structurally correct and *some* of the facts as well but any real grasp of what is being said is largely missing.
This is a direct result of a design built around probability. The overriding objective is plausibility --- not to be confused with either facts or intelligence.
You and I understand this but an LLM doesn't.
An LLM doesn't understand the difference between fact and fiction.
It just uses probability to choose the next word. Hopefully, there are a more facts in it's database that can serve as a guide. But if not, it will just as readily use fiction to produce something that sounds plausible.
Anything an LLM produces simply cannot be trusted and is a poor example of "intelligence".