Even there it works a bit.

> These models are the only other things we've ever met that can hold a conversation, and they're made out of weights

Is a fair point.

Not especially. Depending on where you set your standards for "holding a conversation" you can satisfy the requirement with a classical markov chatterbot, a well-trained parrot, a copy of Eliza, or a telemarketer flowchart drawn on a sheet of paper. Only the markov bot is made out of "weights" in the sense of a statistical model.

Parrots are intelligent animals, albeit with a limited capacity for vocabulary and syntax compared to a human, and Eliza and the flowchart are made out of explicitly encoded rules and conversational tactics.

▲

margalabargala 11 days ago | parent | next [-]

The quality of "conversation" you can have with everything on your list is highly limited, and is categorically different than the sort of conversation you are able to have with any modern AI.

▲

solenoid0937 11 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Weights hold a better conversation at this point than the overwhelming majority of humans.

	▲	Planktonne 11 days ago \| parent [-]
		"I am more comfortable speaking to an LLM than a person" is something that should make you reassess yourself, not dismiss the rest of humanity.