alt Hacker News> This isn't what Turing-completeness is. And by definition all practical computing is not a Turing Machine, simply because TMs require an infinite tape.
I think you are too triggered and entitled in your nit-picking. Its obvious in potentially limited universe infinite tape can't exists, but for practical purpose in CS, turing-completeness means expressiveness of logic to emulate TM regardless of tape size.
I was saying the same thing you were, this is the original post:
> If you allow a transformer to keep generating tokens indefinitely this is probably Turing-complete, though nobody actually does that because of the cost.
Either they're equivalent to Turning machines or not. Claiming that practically they aren't because no one runs them long enough defeats the very notion of a Turning machine in the first place.
I'm shocked a post like this that isn't even at the level of an intro to computation class is getting attention.