> Yeah, that one falls under "no technical details".
Technical details about cost? Or technical details about how models can’t reason?
For example I don’t really need “technical details” to confidently assert that Quicken cannot do ray tracing. Everyone is welcome to try it, and exactly zero people will report being able to use Quicken’s ray tracing abilities in an automated business-critical way.
There isn’t an enormous burden of proof required to back up a description of software that is consistent with the limitations that normal users run into. I don’t know anyone, for example, that would trust it to do basic math in the same way that they would trust other software or even a normal person to do it. Do you?
You can't tell me something "can't reason" or "has no intelligence" without also telling me what reasoning or intelligence is. Or what you think it is. That's the technical detail that's missing. From what I know, whether LLMs reason or not is an open question - are they stochastic parrots? are they not? I dunno, but since you evidently do, so please show your reasoning and evidence. Just because a claim is repeated over and over doesn't mean it's true (or false).
> even a normal person to do it. Do you?
There are intelligent people capable of reasoning with dyscalculia. Sorry, but being unable to do arithmetic is not enough of an argument.
I have no idea what Quicken is, an honestly, ray-tracing (using the definition I'm familiar with) is a mechanical process that doesn't require any intelligence.
EDIT: Here's an article that has the technical details (and it's not a 15-minute read): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/06/a... The original article is 80% PR fluff aimed at emotional influence, the one from Guardian is just good journalism. I have an allergy to the former.
Technical details about cost? Or technical details about how models can’t reason?
For example I don’t really need “technical details” to confidently assert that Quicken cannot do ray tracing. Everyone is welcome to try it, and exactly zero people will report being able to use Quicken’s ray tracing abilities in an automated business-critical way.
There isn’t an enormous burden of proof required to back up a description of software that is consistent with the limitations that normal users run into. I don’t know anyone, for example, that would trust it to do basic math in the same way that they would trust other software or even a normal person to do it. Do you?