Technically if it has that, it'd be singularity no? So basically the premise is they are doing nothing of the sort. Prove any LLM enough and it really does show it has no quarrels contradicting itself or being bossed around. Has no belief / no orientation etc. It's truly mindless but tricks our mind and soul (or whatever) probably.

It really can be useful. It's very different from old world programming.

Some get deleted from repo others archived, others merged or referenced elsewhere. It's kind of organic.

Now, sure, these models can be impressive - but it's a warped lens of humanities own impressive (selected) corpuses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report

To instruct is akin to providing an input. Where do we input to? The program. The program is programmed; but most importantly, the input is not programmed in the sense the program is programmed. It is, perhaps, thoughfully designed (or not). This role is best described as Prompt Designing or Prompt Engineering, not Prompt "Programming". In any case, it is indeed very important. But in my respectful opinion, it is not programming.

It's kind of like thinking that entering a query into a search engine is programming - a host of techniques can be utilized to optimize how that input effects the output (tomes can be written on this just as they can for LLM prompt design by now).

I can kind of defend that premise but it breaks the meaning of conventional usages, and creates more confusion than it brings clarity.

I am beginning to write a blog post in rebuttal, because it's so fascinating.