The article does a sleight of hand when it conflates the output of Science, which is performed by millions over centuries, with the ability of one person or an

The article does a sleight of hand when it conflates the output of Science, which is performed by millions over centuries, with the ability of one person or an AGI to create scientific models. Moreover, I think it misses the true novelty of LLMs. One ancient debate in AGI (greatly simplified here) is whether intelligence can emerge from brute force computation alone (statistics) or from sophisticated algorithms (logic). I certainly started on the logic side. For example, it seemed that if we could create an algorithm or data structure to encode (and retrieve) arbitrary knowledge, then we'd be well on our way to intelligence. Thus all the work on logic programming, symbolic representations, and efforts like Cyc. But by the time Deep Blue beat Kasparov in NYC--something that many people thought impossible--there was evidence that brute force computation was enough. Chess is a great example because humans do not play chess like Deep Blue does. Humans play chess by pattern matching and not by exhaustively generating move trees (brute force). For a while it seemed like true intelligence depended on pattern matching, and that brute force was a neat parlor trick but ultimately a dead-end. But LLMs are brute force pattern matchers. Instead of encoding the rules of grammar, we just feed it a trillion tokens and let it find the patterns. The amazing thing is that you can get intelligent behavior and even creativity just by pattern matching. In fact, think about what creativity is. Creativity is coming up with novel solutions satisfying certain constraints. How do humans do that? Individually we do it by coming up with lots of different solutions (sometimes only as fleeting thoughts) and testing them to see if they satisfy the constraints. Even when humans get a "flash of inspiration" it's often because their subconscious is busy testing various ideas. Collectively, humans invent and discover by having the best ideas, the best art, the best scientific models, win in the competitive marketplace of ideas. But it's still just trial and error. I think that's the genius of the scientific method: that it takes many ideas--some good, most bad--and keeps only the best. But it's not magic. It's just a process. In my opinion, the article is using old arguments against AGI ("computers cannot be creative") exactly when LLMs are exhibiting the very traits that they say can't exist. LLMs are absolutely exhibiting "creativity". Maybe they are only as creative as an average human and not a genius. Maybe they're only as creative as a five-year-old. LLMs are forcing us to confront the fact that intelligence isn't some magic force or elusive unobtanium--it's just the product of brute force pattern matching. It's like when Copernicus postulated that the Earth is not the center of the universe. It's bound to upset people.