> They also still fail to solve objectively easy problems on a regular basis

Which?

What is exactly "actual understanding" . If it tells 1+1 = 2 it can perfectly explain why the result is 2. Or do you mean the actual transformer work during the 1+1 question?

How'd your parrot do at IMO this year?

LLMs are certainly stochastic, but they no longer meet any sane person's definition of "parrot." I can't imagine Gebru disagreeing. Has anyone bothered to ask her?

(Consider responding with an actual counterpoint, so we can all see what reasoning might give rise to such a delusion. Does your pet parrot do calculus and write stories and reverse-engineer Adobe applications?)