> Prove that the problem wasn't seen by them in other form. You can reduce that risk to arbitrarily low levels by trying multiple random grammars of some compl

> Prove that the problem wasn't seen by them in other form. You can reduce that risk to arbitrarily low levels by trying multiple random grammars of some complexity. This is a weak argument. > Oh, come on. It's like rewriting the same program in another programming language with different variables. No, it's like following a grammar, but that requires reasoning about a set of rules it has not seen before. I don't think you understood the task I described as well as ChatGPT does. > What it can't do is to create a concept of programming language, I'm not talking about a new programming language, I'm talking about the concepts. Neither can most humans. And have you tried to ask it about these concepts? I've had it infer semantics of code in programming languages that don't exist based on a hypothetical sample several times, and they're pretty good at coming up with semantics that makes sense. In one instance I gave it a sample with an idea about what made sense to me but it inferred a better set of semantics. None of the papers you linked supports your claim.