Is that what he's arguing? My perspective on what he's arguing is that LLMs effectively rely on a probabilistic approach to the next token based on the previous. When they're wrong, which the technology all but ensures will happen with some significant degree of frequency, you get cascading errors. It's like in science where we all build upon the shoulders of giants, but if it turns out that one of those shoulders was simply wrong, somehow, then everything built on top of it would be increasingly absurd. E.g. - how the assumption of a geocentric universe inevitably leads to epicycles which leads to ever more elaborate, and plainly wrong, 'outputs.'

Without any 'understanding' or knowledge of what they're saying, they will remain irreconcilably dysfunctional. Hence the typical pattern with LLMs:

---

How do I do [x]?

You do [a].

No that's wrong because reasons.

Oh I'm sorry. You're completely right. Thanks for correcting me. I'll keep that in mind. You do [b].

No that's also wrong because reasons.

Oh I'm sorry. You're completely right. Thanks for correcting me. I'll keep that in mind. You do [a].

FML

---

More advanced systems might add a c or a d, but it's just more noise before repeating the same pattern. Deep Seek's more visible (and lengthy) reasoning demonstrates this perhaps the most clearly. It just can't stop coming back to the same wrong (but statistically probable) answer and so ping-ponging off that (which it at least acknowledges is wrong due to user input) makes up basically the entirety of its reasoning phase.