Your reasoning seems clear enough to me. cmiiw, you’re saying Marcus says LLMs don’t really understand language and only present an illusion of that understandi

Your reasoning seems clear enough to me. cmiiw, you’re saying Marcus says LLMs don’t really understand language and only present an illusion of that understanding. And that illusion will noticeably break at a certain scale. And to be honest when context windows get filled up to a certain point, they do become unintelligible and stupid. In spite of this, I think LLMs display intelligence and for me that is more useful than their understanding of language. I haven’t read anything from Chomsky tbh. The utility of LLMs come from their intelligence and the price point at which it is achieved. Ideally the discussion should focus on that. The deeper discussion of AGI should not worry the policy makers or the general public. But unfortunately, business seems intent on diving into the philosophical arguments of how to achieve AGI because that is the logic they have chosen to convince people into giving them more and more capital. And that is what makes Marcus’ and his friends’ critique relevant. One can’t really critique people like Marcus saying he is being academic and pedantic on LLM capabilities, are they real, are they not etc when the money is relentlessly chasing those un-achieved capabilities. So even though you’re saying we aren’t talking about AGI and this isn’t the topic, everything kind of circles back into AGI and the amount of money being poured into chasing that.