> It's safe to say that argument has collapsed utterly. Modern LLMs virtually never collapse into endless babbling loops. Far more importantly, they solve objectively hard problems.

And yet, they still output gibberish. They also still fail to solve objectively easy problems on a regular basis. That is because they are, indeed, still stochastic parrots without any actual understanding of anything or ability to reason about stuff. The argument hasn't collapsed at all.

> They also still fail to solve objectively easy problems on a regular basis

Which?

What is exactly "actual understanding" . If it tells 1+1 = 2 it can perfectly explain why the result is 2. Or do you mean the actual transformer work during the 1+1 question?

How'd your parrot do at IMO this year?

LLMs are certainly stochastic, but they no longer meet any sane person's definition of "parrot." I can't imagine Gebru disagreeing (has anyone bothered to ask her?)