But IMITATING the output of something is not the same as SIMULATING the process that produces that output.
Taking a photograph or creating a movie imitates the reality around us. It does not simulate the processes that produce the look and feel of our reality.
The harder it is to discriminate between A and B on a long series of diverse inputs, the more likely it is that A and B are internally equivalent, not just externally similar. The reason is that there's no better fit than B = A.
I'm increasingly doubting whether my own brain might not, internally, use something that is architecturally similar to an LLM in order to compose comments like the one I'm writing now.
It is possible to repeat words and sentences without having any idea of what they mean. I think the LLMs are currently at that stage.
To produce something that resembles the output of the fictional character Spock is straightforward, just take the texts that are parts of the fiction where fictional Spock speaks, and reassemble then using probabilities that can be calculated by statistically analyzing those texts. That is what LLMs are doing, right? And results can be quite surprising. I assume people were similarly impressed when they first saw movies.
But LLMs are not simulating anything, just like a movie or a photograph are not simulating anything, even though they may PROJECT the visual appearance of their subjects.
Are movies AI? I think it is clear to us they are not even though the characters on the screen seem to behave very intelligently. Movies are about representing and portraying the appearance of real or fictional events in the world. Similarly LLMs are about portraying texts on the internet. LLMs in my opinion are more like interactive movies than simulations of intelligence.
I believe "true AI" will come eventually, and LLMs can give us an impression of what it might look like when it arrives, just like movies can give us an impression of Spock, who doesn't exist.