> Language is all about context. I wasn't trying to be deceitful. And on HN I've never seen anyone using quotation marks to quote people.
It's still unclear how this apparent lack of knowledge of basic writing mechanics would justify your use of quotation marks to attempt a straw man argument wherein you deliberately attempted to convince me that OP said something completely different.
> Doctests isn't same as writing documentation. Doctest are the simplest form of documentation. Given function named so and so write API doc + example. It could not even write example that passed syntax check.
That truly sounds like a skill issue. This no-true-Scotsman angle is silly. I said documentation and tests, I don't know how you got "doctests" out of that. I said "documentation", and "tests". I didn't say "the simplest form of documentation", that is another straw man on your behalf.
> Then you haven't given it interesting/complex enough problems.
Wow, the arrogance. There is absolutely nothing to justify this assumption. It's exceedingly likely that you yourself aren't capable of interacting meaningfully with LLMs for one reason or another, not that I haven't considered interesting or complex problems. I bring some extraordinarily difficult cross-domain problems to these tools and end up satisfied with the results far more often than not.
My argument is literally that cutting-edge LLMs excel with complex problems, and they do in many cases in the right hands. It's unfortunate if you can't find these problems "interesting" enough, but that hasn't stopped me from getting good enough results to justify using an LLM during research and development.
> Also this isn't about practice. It's about its capabilities.
Unfortunately, this discourse has made it clear that you do need considerable practice, because you seem to get bad results, and you're more interested in defending those bad results even if it means insulting others, instead of just considering that you might not quite be skilled enough.
> This is the stochastic parrot in action. Why? Because it tried to pass of JSON like structure as YAML.
That proves its stochasticity, but it doesn't prove it is a "stochastic parrot". As long as you lack the capability to realistically assess these models, it's no wonder that you've had such bad experiences. You didn't even bother clarifying which LLM you used, nor did you mention any parameters of your experiment or even if you attempted multiple trials with different LLMs or prompts. You failed to follow the scientific method and so it's no surprise that you got subpar results.
> Whatever LLM's are they aren't intelligent.
You have demonstrated throughout this discussion that you aren't capable of assessing machine intelligence. If you learned how to be more open-minded and took the time to learn more about these new technologies, instead of complaining about contemporary shortcomings and bashing those who do benefit from the technologies, it would likely open many doors for you.