Language parsing is a routine process that doesn’t require AI and it’s something we have been doing for decades. That phrase in no way plays into the hype of AI. Also, the weights may be random initially (though not uniformly random), but the way they are connected and relate to each other is not random. And after training, the weights are no longer random at all, so I don’t see the point in bringing that up. Finally, machine learning models are not brute-force calculators. If they were, they would take billions of years to respond to even the simplest prompt because they would have to evaluate every possible response (even the nonsensical ones) before returning the best answer. They’re better described as a greedy algorithm than a brute force algorithm.

I’m not going to get into an argument about whether these AIs understand anything, largely because I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter, but also because that would require a definition of understanding which is an unsolved problem in philosophy. You can wax poetic about how humans are the only ones with true understanding and that LLMs are encoded in binary (which is somehow related to the point you’re making in some unspecified way); however, your comment reveals how little you know about LLMs, machine learning, computer science, and the relevant philosophy in general. Your understanding of these AIs is just as shallow as those who claim that LLMs are intelligent agents of free will complete with conscious experience - you just happen to land closer to the mark.

You’re mistaken unfortunately. The books don’t start that way. They start by describing Arthur Dent’s house.

https://twitter.com/latifnasser/status/1750952860131729544

You have the spirit of things right, but the details are far more interesting than you might expect.

For example, there are numbers past infinity. The best way (imo) to interpret the symbol ∞ is as the gap in the surreal numbers that separates all infinite surreal numbers from all finite surreal numbers. If we use this definition of ∞, then there are numbers greater than ∞. For example, every infinite surreal number is greater than ∞ by the definition of ∞. Furthermore, ω > ∞, where ω is the first infinite ordinal number. This ordering is derived from the embedding of the ordinal numbers within the surreal numbers.

Additionally, as a classical ordinal number, ω doesn’t behave the way you’d expect it to. For example, we have that 1+ω=ω, but ω+1>ω. This of course implies that 1+ω≠ω+1, which isn’t how finite numbers behave, but it isn’t a contradiction - it’s an observation that addition of classical ordinals isn’t always commutative. It can be made commutative by redefining the sum of two ordinals, a and b, to be the max of a+b and b+a. This definition is required to produce the embedding of the ordinals in the surreal numbers mentioned above (there is a similar adjustment to the definition of ordinal multiplication that is also required).

Note that infinite cardinal numbers do behave the way you expect. The smallest infinite cardinal number, ℵ₀, has the property that ℵ₀+1=ℵ₀=1+ℵ₀. For completeness sake, returning to the realm of surreal numbers, addition behaves differently than both the cardinal numbers and the ordinal numbers. As a surreal number, we have ω+1=1+ω>ω, which is the familiar way that finite numbers behave.

What’s interesting about the convention of using ∞ to represent the gap between finite and infinite surreal numbers is that it renders expressions like ∞+1, 2∞, and ∞² completely meaningless as ∞ isn’t itself a surreal number - it’s a gap. I think this is a good convention since we have seen that the meaning of an addition involving infinite numbers depends on what type of infinity is under consideration. It also lends truth to the statement, “∞ is not a number - it is a concept,” while simultaneously allowing us to make true expressions involving ∞ such as ω>∞. Lastly, it also meshes well with the standard notation of taking limits at infinity.