You are asking people who, as a rule, do not understand what they do, how they do it, or why they do it, to explain how they are different from something else they don't understand.
You are asking people who are not smart enough to recognize that they are not informed enough, nor in most cases smart enough, to understand anything about the subject of your question, and they will be quite happy to answer. With endless rationalizations that seem plausible enough to them based on their prior associative model of the world. Just like an LLM.
It is difficult to identify the practical difference in output between LLMs and the "left brain interpreter", which is the source of almost the entirety of most people's subjective experience and their "comments on HN" output.
There is a difference between the spewing forth of gibberish, which is the normal human experience, and "intelligence" or "thought". If you haven't yet experienced that difference yourself, within your own lived experience, it would be probably impossible to convey to you in writing...but there is.
On a functional level, as well, it's simply unlikely that the models constructed to date have the capacity to develop what we would call "intelligence" via training. We'll almost certainly get there, but just feeding "books" into what we have today is not likely to produce "intelligence".
We eventually find ways to affect reality, so there is something in our method, which is:
people who are not smart enough to recognize that they are not informed enough, nor in most cases smart enough, to understand anything about the subject of your question, and they will be quite happy to answer
You take a point an push it until it breaks. Then you oh, well. And (with some friction) erase all contradictions it has left.
Maybe it is not producing "intelligence" (whatever that is, after all) but at some point of sophistication it will look like intelligence for all our practical means of testing it. Because (most of?) the effort goes in the direction to make it look like a duck and quack like a duck.
You are asking people who are not smart enough to recognize that they are not informed enough, nor in most cases smart enough, to understand anything about the subject of your question, and they will be quite happy to answer. With endless rationalizations that seem plausible enough to them based on their prior associative model of the world. Just like an LLM.
It is difficult to identify the practical difference in output between LLMs and the "left brain interpreter", which is the source of almost the entirety of most people's subjective experience and their "comments on HN" output.
There is a difference between the spewing forth of gibberish, which is the normal human experience, and "intelligence" or "thought". If you haven't yet experienced that difference yourself, within your own lived experience, it would be probably impossible to convey to you in writing...but there is.
On a functional level, as well, it's simply unlikely that the models constructed to date have the capacity to develop what we would call "intelligence" via training. We'll almost certainly get there, but just feeding "books" into what we have today is not likely to produce "intelligence".