zlacker

>>amrrs+(OP)
I don't know that I would call it an "illusion of thinking", but LLMs do have limitations. Humans do too. No amount of human thinking has solved numerous open problems.

>>esafak+6R
The errors that LLMs make and the errors that people make are not probably not comparable enough in a lot of the discussions about LLM limitations at this point?

>>th0ma5+lR
We have different failure modes. And I'm sure researchers, faced with these results, will be motivated to overcome these limitations. This is all good, keep it coming. I just don't understand the some of the naysaying here.

>>esafak+sS
They naysayers just says that even when people are motivated to solve a problem the problem might still not get solved. And there are unsolved problems still with LLM, the AI hypemen say AGI is all but a given in a few years time, but if that relies on some undiscovered breakthrough that is very unlikely since such breakthroughs are very rare.