[ninetyninenine]

Not true. There’s huge debates among academics. We understand the technology only from a low level of abstraction. At higher levels of abstraction we don’t completely understand what’s going on and there is evidence of higher order intelligent mechanisms at play here.

[hnthrowaway6543]

> we don’t completely understand what’s going on

No, you don't completely understand what's going on. I suggest reading up on LLM architecture. It's not that complicated.

[ninetyninenine]

I have. The failure is with you and your extracting only the mechanical functionality of LLMs as all an LLM is.

The high level macro structure of what ends up being trained is something nobody understands.

Regardless of WHAT I say, the general consensus among academia and professionals is extremely different from what you characterize. I can cite dozens of research papers contrary to your point in a simple google search:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028962...

https://www.topbots.com/llm-reasoning-research-papers/

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601

https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10625

https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.15241

The fact that these research papers exist is testament against your delusional claim that you completely understand how LLMs work just by reading Attention is all you need.

[hnthrowaway6543]

Unfortunately your reading comprehension capability is quite low (which explains why you see LLMs as being potentially intelligent). The usage of the word "thought" in those papers does not actually indicate they believe the LLM is thinking.

[ninetyninenine]

Makes sense why you’d be so angry as to turn to insults. I never said LLMs think. I said it’s controversial so these papers only present controversy as well.

Nuance is key here and people like you in defense of their pride like to get rid of nuance and launch into simplistic false accusations. I never said LLMs think.

Suck it up kiddo. You’re wrong and you’re incapable of facing it.

We are done.