>> I feel very frustrated with these takes because instead of grappling with what we're going to do about it (like having a conversation) it's a flat, dismissiv

>> I feel very frustrated with these takes because instead of grappling with what we're going to do about it (like having a conversation) it's a flat, dismissive denial, and it isn't even grounded in the science, which says that "memory augmented large language models are computationally universal" That's not what "the science says", it's the title of an article that someone put on arxiv. The article has no theoretical results, just a shoddy empirical demonstration of... something. The author claims that the something is an LLM simulating a Turing machine. But, is it? Really? Well, here's how the article concludes: >> Hopefully the reader has been convinced by this point. "Hopefully" is not how you show computational universality of a neural net architecture. This is how: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022000085710136 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002200008... i.e. with maths. That article you link to is a bunch of hooey.