This depends on how you define the word but I don’t think it’s right to say a “statistical machine” can’t “understand”, after all the human brain is a statistical machine too, I think we just don’t like applying human terms to these things because we want to feel special, of course these don’t work in the same way as a human but they are clearly doing some of the same things that humans do
(this is an opinion about how we use certain words and not an objective fact about how LLMs work)
I don't think we _really_ know whether brain is statistical machine or not, let alone whatever we call by consciousness, so it's a stretch to say that LLMs do some of the things humans do [internally and/or fundamentally]. They surely mimic what humans do, but whether is it internally the same or partly the same process or not remains unknown.
Distinctive part is hidden in the task: you, being presented with, say, triple-encoded hex message, would easily decode it. Apparently, LLM would not. o1-pro, at least, failed spectacularly, on the author's hex-encoded example question, which I passed through `od` twice. After "thinking" for 10 minutes it produced the answer: "42 - That is the hidden text in your hex dump!". You may say that CoT should do the trick, but for whatever reason it's not working.
I was going to say this as well. To say the human brain is a statistical machine is infinitely reductionistic being that we don't really know what the human brain is. We don't truly understand what consciousness is or how/where it exists. So even if we understand 99.99~ percent of the ohaycial brain, not understanding that last tiny fraction of it that is core consciousness means what we think we know about it can be up ended by the last little (arguably the largest though) bit. It's similar to saying you understand the inner working and intricacies of the life and society of new York city because you memorized the phone book.
This is my point. He said, they said, studies show, but we really have no idea. There's evidence for the fact that Co consciousness isn't even something we posses so much as a universal field we tap into similar to a radio picking up channels. That the super bowl is experienced by your television, but isn't actually contained within it.
What I'm trying to say (which deviates from the initial question I've asked), is that biological brains (not just humans, plenty of animals as well) are able to not only use "random things" (whether they are physical or just in mind) as tools, but also use those tools to produce better tools.
Like, say, `vim` is a complex and polished tool. I routinely use it to solve various problems. Even if I would give LLM full keyboard & screen access, would be able to solve those problems for me? I don't think so. There is something missing here. You can say, see, there are various `tools` API-level integrations and such, but is there any real demonstration of "intelligent" use of those tools by AI? No, because it would be the AGI. Look, I'm not saying that AI would never be able to do that or that "we" are somehow special.
You, even if given something as crude as `ed` from '73 and assembler, would be able to write an OS, given time. LLMs can't even figure out `diff` format properly using so much time and energy that none of us would ever have.
You can also say, that brains do some kind of biological level RL driven by utility function `survive_and_reproduce_score(state)`, and it might be true. However given that we as humankind at current stage do not needed to excert great effort to survive and reproduce, at least in Western world, some of us still invent and build new tools. So _something_ is missing here. Question is what.
I agree, I think we keep coming up with new vague things that make us special but it reminds me of the reaction when we found out we were descended from apes.
(this is an opinion about how we use certain words and not an objective fact about how LLMs work)