> That was my thought, is model as a computer the best we can do? Nah, there's a better option. Instead of a computer, we could... go for treating it as a pers

> That was my thought, is model as a computer the best we can do? Nah, there's a better option. Instead of a computer, we could... go for treating it as a person. Yes, that's inverting the whole point of the article/discussion here, but think about it: the main limitation of a computer is that we have to tell it step-by-step what to do, because it can't figure out what we mean. Well, LLMs can. Textual chat interface is annoying, particularly the way it works now, but I'd say the models are fundamentally right where they need to be - it's just that a human person doesn't use a single thin pipe of a text chat to communicate with the world; they may converse with others explicitly, but that's augmented by orders of magnitude more of contextual inputs - sights, sounds, smells, feelings, memory, all combining into higher-level memories and observations. This is what could be the better alternative to "LLM as computer": double down on tools and automatic context management, so the user inputs are merely the small fraction of data that's provided explicitly; everything else, the model should watch on its own. Then it might just be able to reliably Do What I Mean.