LLMs are vectorial databases with losses that index statistically filled data, which uses a text interface to query such statistically filled data. The output is a string concatenation.

By the nature of the used architecture in such software, the used algorithms, when queried (prompted), you can get random mixed data as output, ERRORS, due to undesired indexes getting closer at one point while the string was being concatenated for the output, what affects the rest of the indexed content that will be concatenated.

And this is intrinsic to this tech. The larger the context, the greater the probability of get mixed data. And if the provider lowers the precision of those indexes -in order to decrease hardware and energy resources consumption- such probability increases to the point where those errors are granted.

Anyway, even knowing that the queries can return wrong/mixed data in the responses (errors), the companies developing this, decided to introduce a new product, that connects such LLMs responses to the command console, latter connected to internet, running commands from such returned responses witch obviously can contain whatever mixed random. Then we started to hear "oh, it deleted my directory", etc.

Again, One have such described statistical database with text interface, witch query the database recursively with the output text of the previous query, and this is connected to the command console. Larger contexts, several times... What should we expect as result? rhetoric question.

Implying sentience or consciousness is a convenient marketing strategy that has been introduced by anthropomorphising the names of all the methods and algorithms used. An "Agent" should be translated from such deceiving language to "context splitter querying in loop that consumes more tokens from us", or similar.

Right, they’re MAGIC!

Not being built out of conditional branches or loops does not mean they’re somehow outside algorithms or computation. Learned parameters don’t confer exemption from computing.

Did the engineered system behave as intended? No? Then you’ve got a gd bug/failure.

> Computers are used to evaluate LLMs

LLMs run on computers and are thus constrained by the capacity of that which runs it. If the system running the LLM has no network and no software or software-tooling, how does the LLM's generated text take action on a system(computer) that requires software to do anything?

Also, I absolutely agree LLMs are not software, and thats my point. LLMs without supporting software tooling surrounding it cannot do anything but print text. And even the printing of that text happens through software