[weird-eye-issue]

> but we can (and routinely do) also transcend that, question it, play with it. LLMs can’t.

Maybe not in a single inference, but you can have an LLM question itself by running another inference using its previous prompt as input. You can easily see this in a deep research agent loop where it might find some data and then it goes to find other data to back that up but then finds that it was actually incorrect and then it changes its mind

[dwb]

I think this is anthropomorphising far too much. I’ve seen similar patterns, but the end result is still nothing that comes close to what you get from a human.

[weird-eye-issue]

Depends on the human. The average person is really quite dumb and AI is already surpassing them. Where will it be in 5 years?

[dwb]

Whose side are you on?