[Infinity315]

It's a funny thing, because the inverse is falsifiable (testable) whereas the positive version is not. The inverse proof (I would say a hypothesis) is simply application of the scientific method.

There is a way to disprove that the statement: "There is no god" by simply showing a counterfactual god.

There is however no way to disprove the statement: "There is a god."

Likewise, there is a way to disprove the statement: "LLMs cannot be successfully used for X application." By showing that LLMs have been used in X application.

Again, there is no way to disprove the statement: "LLMs can (eventually) be used in X application."

The meat of my question was meant to demonstrate a failure to apply the scientific method.

[bryanrasmussen]

>There is a way to disprove that the statement: "There is no god" by simply showing a counterfactual god.

that both parties to the argument agree is a god.

>Likewise, there is a way to disprove the statement: "LLMs cannot be successfully used for X application." By showing that LLMs have been used in X application.

Again there the point of argumentation will be the word "successfully", the LLM would have to be such an overwhelming success at what it is trying to do that one cannot weasel out of it with "successfully".