I mean that has happened so yeah ?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/amateur-armed-wit...

Actual GPT transcript. Zero such input https://chatgpt.com/share/69dd1c83-b164-8385-bf2e-8533e9baba...

And maybe the other guy wasn't the most polite about it but his point is very valid. Replace chatgpt with a human in both of these stories and nobody would say that timothy 'took the horse and made it drink'. The 'Horse' would be the first and likely only Author so this just sounds like denial.

That there are multiple of these stories in the last few months by the latest set of models (there are even more than these 2) should provoke this sort of consideration and discussion.

These machines are general purpose technologies used by hundreds of millions of people. ChatGPT alone is used by over 900M people every week at least. You can count the technologies with that scale of users in your hand.

You'll never conceive all the sort of uses it could possibly have, much like nobody could ever conceive all the uses the internet had and will have and it would be misguided to think so. As you see, there's like 2 dozen people here telling OP the thing he thought 'No one' could possibly LLMs use for is in-fact seeing some use.

You might if that was the best auto-pilot could be. Have you never used a bus or taken a taxi ?

The vast majority of things people are using LLMs for isn't stuff deterministic logic machines did great at, but stuff those same machines did poorly at or straight up stuff previously relegated to the domains of humans only.

If your competition also "just zones out sometimes" then it's not something you're going to focus on.

That's not at all what happened. You clearly are unable to actually understand the work it did so it would have been nice if you'd read the article and accounts of experts.

Unless they botch the implementation, it's not going to be negligible with ~800M+ free subscribers.

No you could always do that. The meaning you take from it is up to you but you could always separate humans and calculators.

>No, that is not right. Fool’s gold is a thing.

I know what fools gold is. I used it for contrast. Fools gold can be tested for.

>but that doesn’t mean you know how to do it.

It doesn't matter. If you claim it exists but you don't know how to do it and you can't point to anyone who can, it's the same as something you made up.

>It’s like tasting two similar beers or sodas. You may be able to identify them by taste and understand they’re difference but be unable to articulate exactly how you know which is which to the point someone else can use your verbal instructions to know the difference.

You are still making the same mistake. Two similar beers or sodas taste different. No one is asking you to come up with a theory for intelligence. All you have to say here is the equivalent of "It tastes different" and let me taste it for myself. But even that much, you can not do. So why on earth should I treat what you say as worth anything ?

If you wanted to insist a calculator wasn't intelligent and satisfy my conditions then you can. At the very least you can test for the sort of intelligence that is present in humans but absent from calculators and cleanly separate the two. These are very easy conditions if there is some actual real difference.

>That is the equivalent of responding to criticism with “can you do better?”. One does not need to be a chef (or even know how to cook) to know when food tastes foul.

No it's not, and this is a silly argument. Foul food tastes different. Sometimes it even looks different. You can test for it and satisfy my conditions.

You come across a shiny piece of yellow metal that you think is gold. It looks like gold, feels like gold and tests like gold. Suddenly a strange fellow comes about insisting that it's not actually gold. No, apparently there is a 'fake' gold. You are intrigued so you ask him, "Alright, what exactly is fake gold, and how can I test or tell them apart ?". But this fellow is completely unable to answer either question. What would you say about him ? He's nothing more than a mad man rambling about a distinction he made up in his head.

What I'm asking you to do is incredibly easy and basic with a real distinction. I'm not going to tell you to stop believing in your fake gold, but I am going to tell you I and no one else can be expected to take you seriously.

If development ends at a git push and users are left to build/fend for themselves (granted this is a lot of open source), then yeah not much difference, but if you're building and packaging it up for users (which you will more likely to be doing if your project is an app specifically) then the difference is massive.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14150

Even though you had it up as one borne of a greater understanding of LLMs, the interpretability research we have so far, and our current very little understanding of the internal computations of these models does not support your position and certainly not how assured you are about it.

What research shows that you can ask a Human to explain its reasoning and why it said what it said, and that's guaranteed to actually be the motivation? Because there's no such thing. If anything, what research exists suggests any explanation we're making is a nice post-hoc rationalization after the fact even if the Human thinks otherwise.

https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/introspection/index.ht...