>if LLMs are capable of

That is the leap in logic, as an LLM doesn't think/create/feel or understand. It simply copies billions of patterns, and finds the closest fit.

> writing working code,

You mean a compacted collage of stolen codified work from real people. It will require a continuous parasitic relationship of user data to remain coherent. Given the firms have already stolen everything, it is unlikely to improve much as weights are refined.

> art

Again, a statistical output of salient feature clusters mimicking a humans output is not a creative process. For example, a glass-blower only sees the glowing art-form in its true state before it is annealed into its final form. Or a painter undergoes a creative process to find meaning, and abandons the work when there is nothing left to add.

Emotional projection onto an algorithmic output is simply recognizing the millions of peoples aesthetic choices stolen, and compacted with some degree of lost granularity. It is peoples art forms, but no creative thought or intent behind the results.

> solving math problems,

LLM are very good at context search, but require persistent data streams to mine for weighting relevant vector proximity. Again, everything that could be stolen, has already been scraped.

Only user input data remains in a sea of slop, and the process is degenerative given most human chat-users appear to be losing 17% cognitive function. As people discover the intelligence campaign against users is not in their interest.. paying companies to rob you and your friends makes less sense.

Being a sentient turnip, I am probably unaware of such things. ymmv =3