The “conversation” is just one between some redditors or book publishers.

It’s going to narrow in on a statistically better answer but it’s not going to create novel insight beyond the arguments made from compressed snapshots of existing knowledge.

There is no “thinking”. Just more attention, which is apparently, all you need.

>It’s going to narrow in on a statistically better answer but it’s not going to create novel insight beyond the arguments made from compressed snapshots of existing knowledge.

ignoring the fundamentally dishonest representation of LLMs in this subthread..

if humanity was given a tool that could restructure already existing and known knowledge and facts into novel results with a statistically better answer automatically it wouldn't be as a minor a win as you make it sound; it would be tremendous.

All novel insights expressible as text can be assembled from snippets of existing text. The challenge is "only" that you need to find the right snippets. Hence being a stochastic parrot does not represent an upper bound on capabilities, but a suggestion that if you want your parrot to give you a specific answer, you should arrange for a context where it's statistically likely to be correct.

That's not what "attention" means.

> it’s not going to create novel insight beyond the arguments made from compressed snapshots of existing knowledge

So all of the maths breakthroughs were not novel?