So you work on inference engines, and don't see at all what'd be hilariously disingenuous and reductive about describing how LLMs operate as "just parroting the most statistically likely next token"? It is literally* what they do, yes. And only literally, with a big asterisk of "non-colloquial meaning" after the word "statistically". Like how "significant" means something pretty different, albeit related, in academic writing vs everyday speech.

It's equivalent to professing how you just make apple pies from scratch, while your first step is to always reinvent the universe.

You're further magically blind to this operational fact being weaponized as a trope for furthering anti-ai sentiment (i.e. that it's a political dogwhistle at this point), and to thus you participating in that every time you repeat it?

* Ignoring the decoding caveat I already mentioned, along with the countless ways they're steered. There isn't jack that's likely about some of the responses they produce, and intentionally so. Including the whole chat partner act.

I help write optimized CUDA kernels for proprietary hardware. They may "literally" work this way, but that is quite besides the point.

If you don't see why then you have exactly demonstrated my point in how practitioners like you simply lack the foundational understanding in philosophy, information theory, human consciousness, human cognition, neuroscience, necessary to bridge this conceptual gap.

(Rather, it is that we know so little of how consciousness or what intelligence even is, that we cannot possibly use first principles to preclude LLMs from possessing these qualities)

You don't understand the argument, so you keep repeating first order mechanistic observations that are irrelevant. If you don't want to understand the argument, don't be surprised when people refuse to engage with you, especially when it's evident to those more knowledgeable the position you hold is the ignorant one.