Wordceling over semantics of LLMs seems such a fool's errand ripe with an innate smugness that the output of our brains is somehow special, and that no matter h

Wordceling over semantics of LLMs seems such a fool's errand ripe with an innate smugness that the output of our brains is somehow special, and that no matter how advanced these AI get they will never be suffice to their definition of knowledge. It feels like a sort of smug escapism that ignores for many tasks LLM output regardless of how you want to define it is enough. It may not replace humans or our thought entirely, but many otherwise human tasks simply do not require such. Instead of facing the reality of such authors like this article's rejoice under the idea that our thought is special, our output unique and unmatched, those AI marketing fools are for naught as we cannot be replaced because of how they tried sticking LLM's output into a very human shaped box... if only it were that simple.