Even the article admits that AI researchers are aware that LLMs are not sufficient. So the title is absolutely false. The article uses research which has very little to do with the subject to springboard into an opinion piece which itself observes that actually the premiss of the opinion is incorrect.
And once again, what the article is actually talking is how LLMs are being sold to investors. At this point, I get the impression that you simply lack basic reading comprehension to understand the article you’re commending on.
Maybe. Or maybe you lack basic critical thinking to be able to put the article in context. But since you’ve initiated the ad hominem part of the discussion, I don’t think there’s any point continuing this discussion, so we’ll never know.
I’ve literally been contextualizing the article throughout this whole discussion for you. At least we can agree that continuing this is pointless. Bye.
Even the article admits that AI researchers are aware that LLMs are not sufficient. So the title is absolutely false. The article uses research which has very little to do with the subject to springboard into an opinion piece which itself observes that actually the premiss of the opinion is incorrect.
And once again, what the article is actually talking is how LLMs are being sold to investors. At this point, I get the impression that you simply lack basic reading comprehension to understand the article you’re commending on.
Maybe. Or maybe you lack basic critical thinking to be able to put the article in context. But since you’ve initiated the ad hominem part of the discussion, I don’t think there’s any point continuing this discussion, so we’ll never know.
I’ve literally been contextualizing the article throughout this whole discussion for you. At least we can agree that continuing this is pointless. Bye.