The difference is that the weaknesses of cars were problems of engineering, and some of infrastructure. Both aren't very hard to solve, though they take time. The fundamental way cars operated
worked and just needed revision, sanding off rough edges.
LLMs are not like this. The fundamental way they operate, the core of their design is faulty. They don't understand rules or knowledge. They can't, despite marketing, really reason. They can't learn with each interaction. They don't understand what they write.
All they do is spit out the most likely text to follow some other text based on probability. For casual discussion about well-written topics, that's more than good enough. But for unique problems in a non-English language, it struggles. It always will. It doesn't matter how big you make the model.
They're great for writing boilerplate that has been written a million times with different variations - which can save programmers a LOT of time. The moment you hand them anything more complex it's asking for disaster.
LLMs are not like this. The fundamental way they operate, the core of their design is faulty. They don't understand rules or knowledge. They can't, despite marketing, really reason. They can't learn with each interaction. They don't understand what they write.
All they do is spit out the most likely text to follow some other text based on probability. For casual discussion about well-written topics, that's more than good enough. But for unique problems in a non-English language, it struggles. It always will. It doesn't matter how big you make the model.
They're great for writing boilerplate that has been written a million times with different variations - which can save programmers a LOT of time. The moment you hand them anything more complex it's asking for disaster.