i really, really don't get how so many people are making the leaps from "neural nets are effective at text prediction" to "the machine learns like a human does" to "we're going to be intellectually outclassed by Microsoft Clippy in ten years".
like it's multiple modes of failing to even understand the question happening at once. i'm no philosopher; i have no coherent definition of "intelligence", but it's also pretty obvious that all LLM's are doing is statistical extrapolation on language. i'm just baffled at how many so-called enthusiasts and skeptics alike just... completely fail at the first step of asking "so what exactly is the program doing?"
i suppose there is something more "magical" about having the computer respond in realtime, and maybe it's that "magical" feeling that's getting so many people to just kinda shut off their brains when creators/fans start wildly speculating on what it can/will be able to do.
how that manages to override people's perceptions of their own experiences happening right in front of it still boggles my mind. they'll watch a person point out that it gets basic facts wrong or speaks incoherently, and assume the fault lies with the person for not having the true vision or what have you.
(and if i were to channel my inner 2010's reddit atheist for just a moment it feels distinctly like the ways people talk about Christian Rapture, where flaws and issues you're pointing out in the system get spun as personal flaws. you aren't observing basic facts about the system making errors, you are actively in ego-preserving denial about the "inevitability of ai")