>Yes, and most with a background in linguistics or computer science have been saying the same since the inception of their disciplines

I'm not sure what authority linguists are supposed to have here. They have gotten approximately nowhere in the last 50 years. "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up".

>Grammars are sets of rules on symbols and any form of encoding is very restrictive

But these rules can be arbitrarily complex. Hand-coded rules have a pretty severe complexity bounds. But LLMs show these are not in principle limitations. I'm not saying theory has nothing to add, but perhaps we should consider the track record when placing our bets.

▲

sublinear 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm very confused by your comment, but appreciate that you have precisely made my point. There are no "bets" with regard to these topics. How do you think a computer works? Do you seriously believe LLMs somehow escape the limitations of the machines they run on?

▲

ACCount37 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And what are the limitations of the machines they run on?

We're yet to find any process at all that can't be computed with a Turing machine.

Why do you expect that "intelligence" is a sudden outlier? Do you have an actual reason to expect that?

	▲	RandomLensman 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is everything really just computation? Gravity is (or can be) the result of a Turing machine churning away somewhere?

▲

hackinthebochs 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you think these in principle limitations are that preclude a computer running the right program from reaching general intelligence?