Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> if the desired result is achieved (movement through water) it doesn't matter if it happens in a different way than we are used to

But the point is that the desired result isn't achieved, we still need humans to think.

So we still need a word for what humans do that is different from what LLM does. If you are saying there is no difference then how do you explain the vast difference in capability between humans and LLM models?

Submarines and swimming is a great metaphor for this, since Submarines clearly doesn't swim and thus have very different abilities in water, its way better in some ways but way worse in other ways. So using that metaphor its clear that LLM "thinking" cannot be described with the same words as human thinking since its so different.






>If you are saying there is no difference then how do you explain the vast difference in capability between humans and LLM models?

No I completely agree that they are different, like swimming and propulsion by propellers - my point is that the difference may be irrelevant in many cases.

Humans haven't been able to beat computers in chess since the 90s, long before LLM's became a thing. Chess engines from the 90s were not at all "thinking" in any sense of the word.

It turns out "thinking" is not required in order to win chess games. Whatever mechanism a chess engine uses gets better results than a thinking human does, so if you want to win a chess game, you bring a computer, not a human.

What if that also applies to other things, like translation of languages, summarizing complex texts, writing advanced algorithms, realizing implications from a bunch of seemingly unrelated scientific papers, and so on. Does it matter that there was no "thinking" going on, if it works?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: