[therein]

I agree it isn't really proof by contradiction. It is more like proof by demonstration of concrete failures in real life demonstrations, which is stronger.

It is like the author is saying 12 is a prime number and I am like but I divided it by 2 just the other day.

[OrderlyTiamat]

Nit pick, but proof by contradiction is necessarily stronger as it is deductive reasoning, and this kind of "proof" by anecdotal evidence doesn't rise above abductive reasoning. Still useful, very much not a proof.

[woooooo]

We don't have a formal model of how/why any given LLM works, and incidentally we're also short on proofs for real-world software and organizations.

Empirical facts are the strongest thing we have in this domain.

[giantg2]

You don't need a full model. You can build deductive arguments using empirical facts to support the premises.

[bubblyworld]

True, but in this case these are hardly globally applicable facts about LLM-based systems (not nearly to the same degree as "12 divides 2" anyway). Different systems have different properties on all those fronts.

I don't think no argument is the right substitute for a bad one!