"you could never have accomplished"; I am not able to follow the logic here - there is no "magic" in LLMs, they're built by humans and we know what they do.

Sure? I mean the internet is just a bunch of wires and some networking code not magic but at the same completely life alteringly magical.

My logic is that you personally could never have accomplished this feat with all the non LLM tools and content in the world. These kinds of things imply these methods are stepping beyond human ability.

Sure we put walls around it and optimize but the interior of that optimization is not something we understand.

You now have access to a system that for a price could solve something you simply are unable to solve. Not something we programmed it to solve, something that has never been solved before.

Nobody gave it an example of this proof, that's magical.

We don't know what they do. We shape them, but our understanding of how they get to their result is comparatively minimal.

I think you're referring to the fact that the sheer amount of computations is something too time consuming for us to follow? But still it is not "magical" - in theory we could follow all the steps, there's no hidden information.

No, I mean we just don't know what's going on in the circuits of the model at any substantial level. We set their architecture (hyperparameters), we pump them full of data (pretraining), and we shape how they behave through examples (SFT) and reward (RL), but we can't say with any certainty what the resulting model does internally.

You can scroll through https://transformer-circuits.pub/ to see the ~extent of our current understanding.

Yes "at any substancial level" . But still, its all about deterministic processes and still it obeys the law that the same input gives the same output. Or do you mean that the fluctuations like computing environment might ruin the determinism?

100% not deterministic at the scale they run.