Unfortunately it still does create errors.

This is of enormous importance but still is being actively ignored by many professionals or dismissed as as a minor issue.

Our emotional human brains are very enthusiastic about these new kind of "intelligent" products ("partners") and we want to believe so hard that they are finally "there" that we tend to ignore how big of a problem it is that LLMs carry a fundamental design problem with them that will make them produce errors even when we use a grotesque amount of resources to build "bigger" versions of them. The potential for errors will never go away with the current AI architecture.

This is a fundamental paradigm shift in computing. Instead of putting a lot of energy into building an architecture that will produce reliable results, we are now maximizing on a system / idea that will never give us 100% reliable results.

Basically it is just a marketing stunt. Probably the computer science guy building it knew very well that he would still need some fundamental break troughs to get to a real product, but the marketing guy saw that there is still potential to make a lot of money by selling a product that will produce correct results only 80% of the time.

The marketing guy was right and marketing is now dominating science, but humanity will pay a big price for that.

Putting enormous amounts of money into a fundamentally flawed system that we can not optimize to produce reliably error free results is just stupid.

The big achievement of "classical" computing is that the results are reliably error free. We have still some known issues eg. with floating point math and bad blocks on disk / bit flipping etc. but these are observable and we can handle / avoid them. Generally "non-ai-computing" was made so reliable, that we can depend on it for many very important things. This came not by accident but was created by a lot of people who put a lot of resources into research to achieve that result.

LLMs introduce a level of uncertainty and unreliability into computing that makes them practically useless.

Because if you have enough knowledge to verify the result and AI is only quicker in producing the result, what is the point then putting so much resources in it (besides making money by re-centralizing computing, of course). Verifying a lot of results that have been produced quicker is still slow, so the people who are now just AI verifiers should just produce the results themselves, makes the whole process quicker.

AI is only of value if it can produce results about things that you or your organization does not know anything about. But these results you can not verify and therefore potentially wrong results can be fatal for you, your organization and all the people that are affected by actions generated based on these wrong results.

Many people have already been killed because decision makers are not able to follow that very simple logic.

So we can still create "interesting and enjoyable results", but finally it is a gigantic miss-allocation of resources of historic idiocy. It fits, of course, very well in a timeline where grifters are on top of societies around the world.

It is a fundamentally wrong path that should not be followed and scientists around the world should articulate exactly that instead of producing marketing blog posts for a system with such fatal inherent issues.