[filterfiber]

> It's important to recognize that predicting text is not merely about guessing the next letter or word, but rather a complex set of probabilities grounded in language and context. When we look at language, we might see intricate relationships between letters, words, and ideas.

> Maybe when LLMs get as squirrely as humans in their thinking we'll finally admit they really do "reason".

I know we can argue about the definitions of "intelligence", "reasoning", or even "sentience". But at the end of the day we get a list of tokens, and list of probabilities for each token. Yes it is extremely good at predicting tokens which embed information, and are able to predict in-depth concepts and predict what at least appears to be reasoning.

Regardless, probabilities of course contain the possibility of being either incorrect, or undesirable.