[virgilp]

> They are simple statistical predictors, now universal anwsering machines.

I see this a lot. I kinda' doubt the "simple" part, but even beyond that, is there any evidence that statistical predictor can't be a universal answering machine? I think there's plenty of evidence that our thinking is at least partially a statistical predictor (e.g. when you see a black sheep you don't think "at least one side of this sheep is black", you fully expect it to be black on both sides)

I'm not saying that LLMs _are_ universal answering machines. I'm wondering why people question that they are/they can become one, based on the argument that "fundamentally they are statistical predictors". So they are. So what?

[enormousness]

Does your definition of "universal answering machine" include the answers being correct?

If it does, statistical predictors can't help you because they're not always correct or even meaningful (correlation does not imply causation).

If it doesn't then, by all means, enjoy your infinite monkeys