To be very clear, what modern LLMs can do is very, very impressive. Because they can seem so human, we start to anthropomorphize them and ascribe tendencies and

To be very clear, what modern LLMs can do is very, very impressive. Because they can seem so human, we start to anthropomorphize them and ascribe tendencies and behaviors, or even preferences, when those specific words belie what's actually happening to produce the output we see. I do it too. But when you give a sufficiently advanced LLM a chessboard and ask it to checkmate black, and it does, it has not solved the problem of playing chess. It has solved the problem of giving you output that it thinks meets the conditions that satisfy your query the most closely of the potential outcomes it can produce. It is still an LLM. I think that if you wanted an LLM to solve limitless arbitrary problems, you would need to represent all potentials in the weights, and that seems impossible. And even then, it's not actually solving the problems you ask, it's solving the problem of you asking.