[otabdeveloper4]

The gimmick of the LLM is that it outputs text sequentially, as if it is talking to us. That's what makes them feel "alive" and "intelligent" to us. (And yes, ironically it's this sequential nature that actually limits their intelligence in practice, but whatever. The AI hype is about appearances, not facts.)

[lucianbr]

> That's what makes them feel "alive" and "intelligent" to us.

What is the basis for this claim? Seems like "A" (chatbots output text sequentially) is true, and "B" (they feel intelligent to us) is true, and you're claiming "A causes B" without any support at all. Just because they happen to both be true and you personally feel there is a causal relationship, which proves nothing.

[dragonwriter]

> The gimmick of the LLM is that it outputs text sequentially, as if it is talking to us. That's what makes them feel "alive" and "intelligent" to us.

Yes, I got that that was the original claim. I still disagree with us. What makes them feel alive and intelligent is that they produce human-like language output, not that the process by which they construct that output is sequential. Non-autoregressive LLMs of equal output quality would (do) appear just as alive and intelligent as autoregressive LLMs. An autoregressive LLM behind a non-streaming request/response interface where the token-by-token sequencing of the response is not exposed to the user still seems just as intelligent as one where the output is streamed to the user.

[rowanG077]

Are you saying that if visually LLMs would not output text sequentially but at once they would not be as successful as they are?

[otabdeveloper4]

Yes. Human speech is sequential (we make sounds one by one), and when LLMs mimic this with token-by-token autocomplete they seem more anthropomorphic to us.

(I take issue with the word "successful", though. Selling LLMs as a human-like intelligence is a gimmick and a borderline scam.)