Comment by zahlman

I do think it's "okay". After all, it's clear that fixing it would require a fundamentally different approach.

I just also think it's a reason to mock people who don't try to understand those limitations and get way ahead of themselves hyping up the technology.

The entire point of this exercise is to refute the claim that LLMs are a step towards AGI, even given "agency". And we should be happy that they aren't — because supposing that AGI is possible, the way that we currently treat LLMs shows that we as a species are nowhere near ready for the consequences of creating it.