> They can't confirm ground truth about physical reality.

That's true. Of course we can hook an llm up to Motors and sensors. That's a robot. Or a self-driving car. So would you say that those devices can confirm the ground truth about physical reality, and therefore are capable of creativity?

> So would you say that those devices can confirm the ground truth about physical reality

To the extent of the existence, resolution, quality, veracity and placement of any sensors, a machine can register their reported state and use it as a variable. That's substantially different and, currently, much less than the level of knowledge and understanding implied when we say a human "confirms ground truth about physical reality."

> therefore are capable of creativity?

I never mentioned creativity, nor would I in relation to LLMs. Like "Intelligence", "Creativity" is far too vague to be of any use in assessing the capabilities, limitations or utility of LLMs.

On HN, posts like the OP tend to attract POVs at polar extremes from "LLMs are nothing more than stochastic parrots" to "LLMs are (or can be) as intelligent, creative, innovative (etc) as any human or all humans combined." I've researched and thought a lot about these and related topics for a very long time, Neither POV is going to find any quick agreement or easy answers from me.

There's a tiny germ of truth somewhere in both extremes that's drowning in an ocean of confusion ranging from "definitionally or categorically muddled" to "mostly incorrect" to "not even wrong". But neither POV seems interested in anything more than drive-by hot takes, debating over-simplistic strawmen or trading 'gotcha' hypotheticals.