The problem with that is LLMs can output words or symbols that seen like it used "reason" to produce. But for everything the core algorithm does, it's simply nothing like the wetware reasoning to get to the same answer. So he didn't move goalposts. He always meant the reasoning that stems from human cognition.
Technically if it has that, it'd be singularity no? So basically the premise is they are doing nothing of the sort. Prove any LLM enough and it really does show it has no quarrels contradicting itself or being bossed around. Has no belief / no orientation etc. It's truly mindless but tricks our mind and soul (or whatever) probably.
It appears they don't need to reason or be intelligent to be able to produce working solutions for code. But sure let wild and unmonitored? I wrangle my LLMs like the code monkeys they are. They help materialize code and then you need to sculpt it (and test harness of varying sorts)
It really can be useful. It's very different from old world programming.
The boiling - cooking - is the bias here. Winograds Understanding Computers and Cognition is the most excellent resource in 2026, written over three decades ago by now.
Thanks. Sometimes I feel like I'm going insane attempting to ŕeason with people who think the opposite. That these are oracles imbued with human level intellect and creativity.
Now, sure, these models can be impressive - but it's a warped lens of humanities own impressive (selected) corpuses.
My take is its less so about being physically comfortable, but there is a different type of comfort by the protection of the nest from predators. It's like being uncomfortable to have peace of bird mind, in other words.
Schumpeter called it the eroding foundation of Capitalism. Its not technically Capitalism, as the system, at fault though. It's interesting. Feel free to explore it more. Or perhaps you already do
To instruct is akin to providing an input. Where do we input to? The program. The program is programmed; but most importantly, the input is not programmed in the sense the program is programmed. It is, perhaps, thoughfully designed (or not). This role is best described as Prompt Designing or Prompt Engineering, not Prompt "Programming". In any case, it is indeed very important. But in my respectful opinion, it is not programming.
It's kind of like thinking that entering a query into a search engine is programming - a host of techniques can be utilized to optimize how that input effects the output (tomes can be written on this just as they can for LLM prompt design by now).
I can kind of defend that premise but it breaks the meaning of conventional usages, and creates more confusion than it brings clarity.
No...prompts are definitely not programs, prompts are inputs to programs. How someone can write a blog post on such a demonstrably fallacious premise is beyond me.
I am beginning to write a blog post in rebuttal, because it's so fascinating.