← Back to context

Comment by handoflixue

17 hours ago

Seriously, all that familiarity and you think an LLM "literally" can't invent anything that didn't already exist?

Like, I'm sorry, but you're just flat-out wrong and I've got the proof sitting on my hard drive. I use this supposedly impossible program daily.

Do you also think LLMs "think"?

From what you've described an LLM has not invented anything. LLMs that can reason have a bit more slight of hand but they're not coming up with new ideas outside of the bounds of what a lot of words have encompassed in both fiction and non.

Good for you that you've got a fun token of code that's what you've always wanted, I guess. But this type of fantasy take on LLMs seems to be more and more prevalent as of late. A lot of people defending LLMs as if they're owed something because they've built something or maybe people are getting more and more attached to them from the conversational angle. I'm not sure, but I've run across more people in 2025 that are way too far in the deep end of personifying their relationships with LLMs.

  • Hang on, you're now saying that if something has ever been described in fiction it doesn't count as invention? So if somebody literally developed a working photon torpedo, that isn't new because "Star Trek Did It"?

    • You seem to be pretty far down the rabbit hole. How about this... You task an LLM to create a photon torpedo. If it can truly think then it should be able to provide you with something tangible. When you've got that in hand let us all know.

      Back to the land of reality... Describing something in fiction doesn’t magically make it "not an invention". Fiction can anticipate an idea, but invention is about producing a working, testable implementation and usually involves novel technical methods. "Star Trek did it" is at most prior art for the concept, not a blueprint for the mechanism. If you can't understand that differential then maybe go ask an LLM.

      1 reply →

FWIW, your "evidence" is a text editor. I'm glad you made a tool that works for you, but the parent's point stands; this is a 200-level course-curriculum homework assignment. Tens of thousands of homemade editors exist, in various states of disrepair and vain overengineering.

  • The difference between those is the person is actually using this text editor that they built with the help of LLMs. There's plenty of people creating novel scripts and programs that can accommodate their own unique specifications.

    If a programmer creating their own software (or contracting it out to a developer) would be a bespoke suit and using software someone or some company created without your input is an off the rack suit, I'd liken these sorts of programs as semi-bespoke, or made to measure.

    "LLMs are literally technology that can only reproduce the past" feels like an odd statement. I think the point they're going for is that it's not thinking and so it's not going to produce new ideas like a human would? But literally no technology does that. That is all derived from some human beings being particularly clever.

    LLMs are tools. They can enable a human to create new things because they are interfacing with a human to facilitate it. It's merging the functional knowledge and vision of a person and translating it into something else.

When a computer is able to invent things, we’ve achieved AGI. Do you believe we are already in the AGI era, or is the inventor in this case actually you?

Some people cannot be convinced simply because their expectation of "novel" is something that appears in an Asimov novel.

I for one think your work is pretty cool - even though I haven't seen it, using something you built everyday is a claim not many can make!