I'm not sure how you'd land on an LLM being unable to invent anything new. You'd have to both understand exactly what LLMs are and aren't capable of today and what allows human creativity. I don't think there are good answers to either.

It seems unlikely that recursively predicting the next word would lead to creativity or invention, but it doesn't seem impossible. Similarly, it seems unlikely that human thought works in a similar prediction loop, but it doesn't seem impossible.

▲

r14c 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Human ingenuity is creative by definition, that's where the concept arises. The burden of proof is on AI labs to prove that their models are rising to the level of actual synthesis, rather than very impressive 200-level regurgitation that looks like synthesis if you squint a bit; because the model has access to more raw data than your average sophomore student.

	▲	ben_w an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Human ingenuity is creative by definition, that's where the concept arises Sure, but until we can turn that tautology into something more rigorous, we can't tell if the thing humans do is more or less than what some arbitrary non-human (machine, animal, or eventually perhaps alien) does.