alt Hacker NewsThe burden of proof is on the one making extraordinary claims. There has been no indication from any credible source that LLMs are able to think for itself. Human brains are still a mystery. I don't know why you can so confidently claim that neural models can mimic what humanity knows so little about.
> Two different programmers can take a well-enough defined spec and produce two separate code bases that may (but not must) differ in implementation, while still having the exact same interfaces and testable behavior.
Imagine doing that without a rigid and concise way of expressing your intentions. Or trying again and again in vain to get the LLM produce the software that you want. Or debugging it. Software development will become chaotic and lot less fun in that hypothetical future.
The burden of proof is not on the person telling you that a citation is needed when claiming that something is impossible. Vague phrases mean nothing. You need to prove that there are these fundamental limitations, and you have not done that. I have been careful to express that this is all theoretical and possible, you on the other hand are claiming it is impossible; a much stronger claim, which deserves a strong argument.
> I don't know why you can so confidently claim that neural models can mimic what humanity knows so little about.
I'm simply not ruling it out. But you're confidently claiming that it's flat out never going to happen. Do you see the difference?