> When you say that the output of LLM is "correct", what do you mean? The output that seems impressive is merely "plausibly written by an intelligent entity" bu

> When you say that the output of LLM is "correct", what do you mean? The output that seems impressive is merely "plausibly written by an intelligent entity" but there is nothing about it that could be characterized as being "correct". My point is that we should not make these types of distinctions about how "we" "reason" versus how an LLM does. For example, I have no idea if your reply came from ChatGPT, but it sounds pretty intelligent to me. In that sense, your output is "correct" because it led me to believe I am arguing with an intelligent being. The analogy to a broken clock which is correct twice a day is ridiculous, because ChatGPT, on average, is quite capable of producing meaningful replies to a very complex problem (natural language queries). I don't quite get your analogy to insects. If we figure out an analog pheromone to the ones ants use to communicate, then we found out something very meaningful about ants. Likewise here, I am quite certain ChatGPT is not producing language in the same way a human does, but is it using the same principles? Chomsky and others are prescriptive in saying it is not, yet their arguments are not convincing.