Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to sound corny. LLMs just don't really use or apply information in a way that I think should be considered intelligent. It just repeats its training data. I don't just repeat my training data (even if it was an influence on me)
The reason why I said it sounded that way to me is that the 'intelligence' part in AI was never meant to imply some kind of superhuman ability. I highlighted the age of the field to point out precisely that judging any AI systems as humans would've been seen as outlandish and laughable for most of the field's existence. If computer vision is AI, then surely text generators can also be. It doesn't have to be a glamoro…
I will admit that in my experience, LLMs tend to be really good at tip-of-my-tongue type stuff. There are certain very particular types of queries that LLMs seem to greatly excel at, and they're mostly where the words I want aren't in the words that I am using. I can just spam vibes into the prompt and have an LLM give me words/phrases that exactly fit what I am looking for, even if I couldn't recall any of the proper terms that would allow good results to turn up from a search engine.