[barfbagginus]

It also invites the mistaken judgement that LLM-derived architecture cannot possibly give human level reasoning.

"No matter what you do to an LLM it's still a stochastic parrot."

Adding memory? Nope.

Interactive hypothesis testing and iterative experiments? Sounds like something a parrot would say.

It can automatically solve 12% of GitHub issues? Pfft, I could theoretically do 100%. If I wasn't incredibly busy...

It's okay though. At this point, when someone cites Lecun to prove LLMs can never reason, we can safely assume they don't care about having an informed opinion. It's a screening signal. It tells us someone does not have a useful theory of mind and reasoning, and does not intend to do constructive work on AI systems that can reason.