> let's take for granted that if one has a theory, then they have understanding
Leaving aside what is actually meant by "theory" and "understanding". Could it not be argued that eventually LLMs will simulate understanding well enough that - for all intents and purposes - they might as well be said to have a theory?
The parallel I've got in my head is the travelling salesman problem. Yes, it's NP-Hard, which means we are unlikely to ever get a polynomial-time algorithm to solve it. But that doesn't stop us solving TSP problems near-optimally at an industrial scales.
Similarly, although LLMs may not literally have a theory, they could become powerful enough that the edge cases in which a theory is really needed are infinitesimally unlikely.
Leaving aside what is actually meant by "theory" and "understanding". Could it not be argued that eventually LLMs will simulate understanding well enough that - for all intents and purposes - they might as well be said to have a theory?
The parallel I've got in my head is the travelling salesman problem. Yes, it's NP-Hard, which means we are unlikely to ever get a polynomial-time algorithm to solve it. But that doesn't stop us solving TSP problems near-optimally at an industrial scales.
Similarly, although LLMs may not literally have a theory, they could become powerful enough that the edge cases in which a theory is really needed are infinitesimally unlikely.