I was originally sceptical of LLMs and am far from the „agents will magically fix our future“-crowd, but sentences like these trip me up:

> „But pattern‑matching is not system understanding, and plausibility is not correctness.“

Why not? Who says that? Who proved that system understanding is not just more complex pattern matching?

> „LLMs predict tokens, not consequences“

Same here. LLMs output tokens but who says that they don’t form some internal group of token-predicting tensors that move together and constitute the internal model of a „consequence“? It is like saying humans don’t have thoughts, they just have electrical impulses moving their tongues.

I too think that LLMs seem to be a very specific form of intelligence, maybe resembling the parts of our brain that do language-processing, but it is a fact that they at least fake intelligence very convincingly. And that we actually don’t know how they do it.