Your takeaway presumes that all LLM interactions are monolithic, which is the opposite of what was being claimed if you take the other poster's comments about tool use into consideration.
I have no real investment in this conversation though, so your proclamation of winning can stand as far as I'm concerned.
> (…)
> Obviously, Star Trek's computer isn't just one big LLM. That would be a stupid design.
Or, in other words, we don’t have Star Trek’s computer like originally claimed, and our current closest solution isn’t the way to get it.