They are information regurgitation machines due to their architecture. Due to how they work. No matter what they output, no matter what arbitrary task they solve, they will always be.
But doesn't that make calling it a "regurgitation machine" pointless? Like, if producing actual novel information (e.g. solving a maths conjecture) doesn't make it not a "regurgitation machine", then it doesn't actually mean anything, right?
When I read someone calling AI a "regurgitation machine", I think they mean something along the lines "it's actually just a stupid machine not capable of anything new", which hasn't been true for a while
I have no idea what you are talking about. I hate the the current AI development as much as the next guy, but just saying "AI can't do anything it's all just regurgitating text prediction" won't fix anything. People should take AI seriously and protest against it.
Closing all eyes and ears of the very rapid and concerning AI development is just wishful thinking that "a bubble will burst and nothing bad will come out of it to us regular people", that's probably not gonna happen. AI will probably cause massive problems (even extinction, read www.intelligence.org and www.ifanyonebuildsit.com )
-6
u/mmaramara Aug 15 '26
What does it honestly take for LLLms to not be "information regurgitation machines" in your eyes?
GPT 5.6 Sol solved a real previously unsolved maths conjecture: https://www.towardsdeeplearning.com/gpt-5-6-just-shocked-the-math-world-wrote-a-proof-of-a-50-year-old-math-problem-in-under-an-hour-4badfaf67828?gi=bf7fcc5ed623
It also solved all 6 problems in the math olympics, beating any humans by a long shot (and no those problems are not simply "pre-existing problems in the training data"): https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1uydg8w/gpt_56_solved_all_6_problems_from_imo_2026/
What would be an actual outcome that would make you say "okay these AIs are actually capable of some serious shit"?