Even if LLM's can't be said to have 'true understanding' (however you're choosing to define it), there is very little to suggest they should be able to ~~understand~~ predict the correct response to a particular context, abstract meaning, and intent with what primitive tools they were built with.

Did you mean "shouldn't"? Otherwise I'm very confused by your response

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, i mean 'should', as in:

There's no reason to expect a program that calculates the probability of the next most likely word in a sentence should be able to do anything more than string together an incoherent sentence, let alone correctly answer even an arbitrary question

It's like using a description for how covalent bonds are formed as an explanation for how it is you know when you need to take a shit.

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair enough, that just seemed to be the opposite point that the rest of your post was making so seemed like a typo.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago

I don't think so...