> if we are to properly understand LLMs, we need to accept that linguistic creativity can be completely distinct from intelligence, and that text doesn’t have t

> if we are to properly understand LLMs, we need to accept that linguistic creativity can be completely distinct from intelligence, and that text doesn’t have to refer to the physical world – just to other words. What these machines demonstrate is that language works as a system of signs that mostly refer just to other signs. But does that preclude intelligence? Arguably all interaction with the world is through, or understood through, signs.