[antonvs]

Critiques like this tend to focus very hard on what models can't do. It's true, they have limitations.

But they're also superhuman in so many other ways. It's valid to point out limitations, but that doesn't support the conclusion that models are not incredibly powerful and capable of the functional equivalent of reasoning at human or superhuman levels in many scenarios.

[noosphr]

They may be better than humans at reasoning but they are substantially worse than the first generation logic programs from the 1950s.

[cheevly]

These types of comments help demonstrate first-hand how human reasoning stacks up against what an LLM would say in this situation.

[leecommamichael]

Agreed. Both are true. I sometimes think of the calculator as being superhuman as well.

[antonvs]

Yes, although the calculator couldn't "reason" the way ML models can.

All the political and emotional reactions to LLMs seem to obscure how absolutely amazing this technology is. I've pointed them at codebases I wrote entirely myself and had them find bugs, point things out I had missed, plan and implement refactorings to improve code quality, etc. I may be "smarter" than the models in some ways but there's no question they're smarter than me in others. They're unlike any tool we've ever had access to.

Yes, the politics and economics around them leaves a lot to be desired (read: is absolutely terrible), and there are a lot of valid justifications for the "AI backlash", but there's a very important baby in that bathwater.