Came here to say this. Their paper reels of wishful thinking and labeling things in terms they prefer it would be. They even note in one place their replacement model has a 50% accuracy which is simply a fancy way to say the model's result is completely by chance, and it could be interpreted one way or another. Like throwing a coin.
In reality all that's happening is drawing samples on the joint probability of the tokens in the context window. That's what the model is designed to do, trained to do - and that's exactly what it does. More precisely that is what the algorithm does, using the model weights, the input ("prompt", tokenized) and the previously generated output, one token at a time. Unless the algorithm is started (by a human, ultimately), nothing happens. Note how entirely different that is to any living being that actually thinks.
All interpretation above and beyond that is speculative and all intelligence found is entirely human.
In reality all that's happening is drawing samples on the joint probability of the tokens in the context window. That's what the model is designed to do, trained to do - and that's exactly what it does. More precisely that is what the algorithm does, using the model weights, the input ("prompt", tokenized) and the previously generated output, one token at a time. Unless the algorithm is started (by a human, ultimately), nothing happens. Note how entirely different that is to any living being that actually thinks.
All interpretation above and beyond that is speculative and all intelligence found is entirely human.