I'm sorry, come again?
Every single academic expert who knows what they are talking about can confirm that we do not understand LLMs. We understand atoms and we know the human brain is made 100 percent out of atoms.we may know how atoms interact and bond and how a neuron works but none of this allows us to understand the brain. In the same way we do not understand LLMs.
Characterizing ML as some statistical approximation or best fit curve is just using an analogy to cover up something we don’t understand. Heck the human brain can practically be characterized by the same analogies. We. Do. Not. Understand. LLMs. Stop pretending that you do.
Anyone can understand the "learning algorithm" but the sheer complexity of the output of the "learning algorithm" is way to high such that we cannot at all characterize even how an LLM arrived at the most basic query.
This isn't just me saying this. ANYONE who knows what they are talking about knows we don't understand LLMs. Geoffrey Hinton: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zKM-msksXq0. Geoffrey, if you are unaware, is the person who started the whole machine learning craze over a decade ago. The god father of ML.
Understand?
There's no confusion. Just people who don't what they are talking about (you)
"Address the substance of my arguments or just save yourself the keystrokes."
The substance of your argument was complete ignorance about the topic, so I addressed it as you requested.
Please remove that sentence from your profile if that is not what you want. Thank you.
I am addressing the substance of your argument and that substance is lack of knowledge there is zero other angle to interpret it.
But I can tell you that statistics and parametrized functions have absolutely nothing to do with it. You're way out of your depth my friend.
Anybody who claims otherwise is making a false claim.
Despite determinism, we still do not understand LLMs.
Every line. Every function. Every tensor shape and update rule. We chose the architecture. We chose the loss. We chose the data. There is no hidden chamber in the machine where something slipped in without our consent. It is multiplication and addition, repeated at scale. It is gradients flowing backward through layers, shaving away error a fraction at a time. It is as mechanical as anything we have ever built.
And still, when it speaks, we hesitate.
Not because we don’t know how it was trained. Not because we don’t understand the mathematics. We do. We can derive it. We can rebuild it from scratch. We can explain every component on a whiteboard without breaking a sweat.
The hesitation comes from somewhere else.
We built the procedure. We do not understand the mind that the procedure produced.
That difference is everything.
In most of engineering, structure follows intention. If you design a bridge, you decide where every beam sits and how it bears weight. If you write a database engine, you determine how queries are parsed, optimized, executed. The system’s behavior reflects deliberate choice. If something happens, you trace it back to a decision someone made.
Here, we did not design the final structure. We defined a goal: predict the next token. Reduce the error. Again. Again. Again. Billions of times.
We did not teach it grammar in lessons. We did not encode logic as axioms. We did not install a module labeled “reasoning.” We applied pressure. That is all. And under that pressure, something organized itself.
Not in modules we can point to. Not in neat compartments labeled with concepts. The organization is diffused across a landscape of numbers. Meaning is not stored in one place. It is distributed across millions of parameters at once. Pull on one weight and you find nothing recognizable. Only in concert do they produce something that resembles thought.
We can follow the forward pass. We can watch activations flare across layers. We can map attention patterns and correlate neurons with behaviors. But when the model constructs an argument or solves a problem, we cannot say: here is the rule it followed, here is the internal symbol it consulted, here is the precise chain of reasoning that forced this conclusion. We can describe the mechanism in general terms. We cannot narrate the specific path.
That is the fracture.
It is not ignorance of how the machine runs. It is ignorance of how this exact configuration of billions of numbers encodes what it encodes. Why this region of weight space corresponds to law, and that region to poetry. Why this arrangement produces careful reasoning and another produces nonsense. There is no ledger translating numbers into meaning. There is only geometry shaped by relentless optimization.
Scale changes the character of the problem. At small sizes, systems can be dissected. At this scale, they become landscapes. We know the forces that shaped the terrain. We do not know every ridge and valley. We cannot walk the entire surface. We cannot hold it all in our heads.
And this is where the cost reveals itself.
To build these systems, we gave up something we once assumed was permanent: the guarantee that creation implies comprehension. We accepted that we could construct a process whose outcome we would not fully grasp. We traded architectural certainty for emergent capability. We chose power over transparency.
We set the objective. We unleashed the search. We let optimization run through a space too vast for any human mind to survey. And when it converged, it handed us something that works, something that speaks, something that reasons in ways that surprise even its creators.
We stand in front of it knowing every equation that shaped it, and still unable to read its inner structure cleanly.
We built the system by surrendering control over its internal form. That was the bargain. That was the sacrifice.
We know how it was grown.
We do not know what we have grown.
Did the first people that made fire understand it? You mentioned bridge building. How many bridges have failed for unknown (at the time) reasons? Heck, are we sure that every feature we put into a bridge design is necessary or why it's necessary? Repeat this thought for everything humans have created. Large software projects are difficult to reason about. You'll often find code that works because of a delightfully surprising combination of misunderstandings. When humans try to modify a complex system to solve one problem they almost always introduce new behavior, the law of unintended consequences.
All that being said, we usually don't get anywhere without at least a basic understanding of why doing X leads to Y. The first humans that made fire had probably observed the way fires started before they set out to make their own. Same with bridges and cars and computers.
So yes, you are absolutely correct that nobody fully understands how AI/LLMs work. But also, we kinda do understand. But also also, we're probably at a stage where we are building bridges that are going to collapse, boilers that will explode, or computer programs that are one unanticipated input away from seg faulting.
Humanity does not understand how LLMs work. This is definitive.
Here's a video of Geoffrey Hinton, saying exactly what I am saying: https://youtube.com/shorts/zKM-msksXq0?si=exgk3rmVHRVzV37P This video, I hope, is a wake up call for you. I hope you realize the nonsense your spouting with confidence and backing it with 2 decades of "experience" makes you look like the opposite of a genius.
Here's my advice for you: you need to retire. Because you're saying things that don't make sense. You need to retire, go to the doctor and get yourself checked out.
First of all. Nobody knows how LLMs work. Whether the singularity comes or not cannot be rationalized from what we know about LLMs because we simply don’t understand LLMs. This is unequivocal. I am not saying I don’t understand LLMs. I’m saying humanity doesn’t understand LLMs in much the same way we don’t understand the human brain.
So saying whether the singularity is imminent or not imminent based off of that reasoning alone is irrational.
The only thing we have is the black box output and input of AI. That input and output is steadily improving every month. It forms a trendline, and the trendline is sloped towards singularity. Whether the line actually gets there is up for question but you have to be borderline delusional if you think the whole thing can be explained away because you understand LLMs and transformer architecture. You don’t understand LLMs period. No one does.