[Jensson]

> After the giant media carousel last year, most people know what an LLM is, and the intuitive understanding they built from that reporting is way more accurate than what I have seen here.

Or your own understanding is a lot less accurate than you think and you could learn something from listening a bit more.

For example, text prediction being a problem you need general intelligence to solve perfectly doesn't mean that training a model on text prediction will lead to general intelligence, that is a massive misunderstanding many pro LLM people seem to not get. They are trained on text prediction, that creates a large number of limitations, there is a big difference between a model trained to be general and a model trained to be a text predictor.

Similarly a computer is a turing machine so can calculate everything, but that doesn't mean that the computer can solve every problem with the programs we have today or even that they will be able to anytime in our lifetimes.

So, here you obviously got stuck on the meme argument "text prediction requires general intelligence" without thinking further, so you just did the error you accuse the other people of. People on HN pointing out all the limitations that comes from being trained to predict text doesn't make them ignorant, that makes them smart, LLMs are trained to predict text and that makes them capable at a lot of things but also bad at a lot of things, understanding that makes you a lot better at using LLMs.