You keep repeating it, but it’s obviously wrong in practice. I guess you can make an argument that sending WhatsApp message or generating video is just a search job but that’s not a great argument for why humans wouldn’t get replaced - it doesn’t matter if LLMs can be reduced to search tools, but if their output is good enough approximation of human worker output. If it is then it has a chance to replace human, even if you call it glorified search tool.

Yes, a better search tool will automate a lot of currently employed manual search jobs.

Surely you must realise that calling things like programming or different types of office jobs (which are almost replaceable even today) "manual search jobs" is absurd?

I didn't name any jobs.

You say this as though it's a pithy point.

Might as well say humans are just a better search tool - it's true in the exact same sense you're using.

All humans do is absorb information, then search through our memories and apply that information in relevant contexts to affect the world

> pithy point.

Not really, because I do think all knowledge can be obtained by searching true randomness.