alt Hacker NewsThe 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?
You can't just make extraordinary claims [1][2], demand rigorous citation for those who question it, even going as far as to word lawyer the definition of cognition [3], and reverse the burden of proof. All the while providing no evidence beyond what essentially boils down to "anything and everything is possible."
> Vague phrases mean nothing.
Yep, you made my point.
> Do you see the difference?
Yes, I clearly state my reasons. I can confidently claim that LLMs are no replacements for programming languages for two reasons.
1. Programming languages are superior to natural languages for software development. Nothing on earth, not even transformers, can make up for the unavoidable lack of specificity in the hypothetical natural language programs without making things up because that's how logic works.
2. LLMs, as impressive as they may be, are fundamentally computerized parrots so you can't understand or control how they generate code unlike with compilers like GCC which provides all that through source code.
This is just stating the obvious here, no surprises.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43567653
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43568699
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43585498