> This sounds wrong. It sounds as if you're arguing that empiricism and the usual scientific method ends up in mysticism I think we’re on the same page... I’m

> This sounds wrong. It sounds as if you're arguing that empiricism and the usual scientific method ends up in mysticism I think we’re on the same page... I’m arguing that the current approach to creating better LLMs is more akin to an art involving educated guesses and tinkering than it is a hypothesis-driven process with randomized controls (e.g., traditional engineering disciplines or applied physics / chemistry).