You're absolutely wrong!

You can also ask an LLM to solve that problem by spelling the word out first. And then it'll count the letters successfully. At a similar success rate to actual nine-year-olds.

There's a technical explanation for why that works, but to you, it might as well be black magic.

And if you could get a modern agentic LLM that somehow still fails that test? Chances are, it would solve it with no instructions - just one "you're wrong".

1. The LLM makes a mistake

2. User says "you're wrong"

3. The LLM re-checks by spelling the word out and gives a correct answer

4. The LLM then keeps re-checking itself using the same method for any similar inquiry within that context

In-context learning isn't replaced by anything better because it's so powerful that finding "anything better" is incredibly hard. It's the bread and butter of how modern LLM workflows function.

> it's so powerful that finding "anything better" is incredibly hard.

We're back around to the start again. "Incredibly hard" is doing all of the heavy lifting in this statement, it's not all-powerful and there are enormous failure cases. Neither the human brain nor LLMs are a panacea for thought, but nobody in academia or otherwise is seriously comparing GPT to the human brain. They're distinct.

> There's a technical explanation for why that works, but to you, it might as well be black magic.

Expound however much you need. If there's one thing I've learned over the past 12 months it's that everyone is now an expert on the transformer architecture and everyone else is wrong. I'm all ears if you've got a technical argument to make, the qualitative comparison isn't convincing me.