No they are not.

(You're probably going to have to get better at answering objections than merely asserting your contradiction of them.)

Nah, calling out completely baseless assertions as just that is fine and a positive contribution to the discussion.

Intelligence is just optimization over recursive prediction function.

There is nothing special about human intelligence threshold.

It can be surpassed by many different models.

Your carefully constructed argument is less than convincing.

Could you at least elaborate what they are “not”? Surelly you are not having a problem with “LLMs predict language”?

> LLMs predict language, and language is a representation of human concepts about the world. Thus, these models are constructing, piece by piece, conceptual chains about the world.

I smell a fallacy. Parent has moved from something you can parse as "LLMs predict a representation of concepts" to "LLMs construct concepts". Yuh, if LLMs "construct concepts", then we have conceptual thought in a machine, which certainly looks interesting. But it doesn't follow from the initial statement.

Language is only one projection of reality into fewer dimensions, and there's a lot it can't capture. Similar to how a photograph or painting has to flatten 3D space into a 2D representation, so a lot is lost.

I think trying to model the world based on a single projection won't get you very far.