Yeah I agree. We have reached the end of LLMs. LLMs are infallible and require no further improvement. Anyone who points out shortcomings of current architectures and training approaches should be ignored as a naysayer. Anyone who proposes a solution to perceived flaws is a crank trying to fix something that was never broken. Everyone knows humans are incapable of internal monologues or visualization and vocalisation. Humans don't actually move their lips to speak to produce a sound that can be interpreted by a speaker of the same language, they produce universally understood tokens encoding objective reality and the fact that they use the local language is merely a habit that is hard to break out of.
Sometimes, when I'm undertaking the arduous work of assigning probabilities to everything I could possibly say next in a conversation, I wish that I weren't merely a stochastic autoregressive next-token generator. Them's the breaks, though.
