Comment by ThrowawayR2

I would analogize LLMs to physics simulations in software. Game engines, for example, simulate physics enough to provide a good enough semblance of real-world physics for suspension of disbelief but we would never mistake it for real world physics. Complicated enough simulations, e.g. for weather forecasting, nuclear weapons, or QCD, can provide insights and prove physics theories, but again, experts would never mistake it for real world physics and would be able to explain where the simulation breaks down when trying to predict real world behavior.

Now we have these LLMs that provide some simulation of reasoning merely through prediction of token patterns and that is indeed unexpected and astonishing. However, the AI promoters want to suggest that this simulation of reasoning is human-level reasoning or evolving toward human-level reasoning and this is the same as mistaking game engine physics for real physics. The failure cases (e.g. the walk vs drive to a car wash next door question or the generating an image of a full glass of wine issue), even if patched away, are enough to reveal the token predictor underneath.