The article is about what LLMs can do, and I read it as what they can do in theory, as they're developed further. It's an argument based on principle, not on th

The article is about what LLMs can do, and I read it as what they can do in theory, as they're developed further. It's an argument based on principle, not on their current limitations. You can read it as a claim about what LLMs can do now, but that wouldn't be very interesting, because it's obvious that no current LLM can replace a human programmer. I think the author contradicts themselves. They argue that LLMs cannot build theories because they fundamentally do not work like humans do, and they conclude that LLMs can't replace human programmers because human programmers need to build theories. But if LLMs fundamentally do not work like humans, how do we know that they need to build theories the same way that humans do?