[Last5Digits]

You consistently refuse to take the necessary reasoning steps yourself. If your next reply also requires me to lead you every single millimeter to the conclusion you should have reached on your own, then I won't reply again.

First of all, it obviously changes everything. A shortsighted person requires prescription glasses, someone that is fundamentally unable to count is incurable from our perspective. LLMs could do all of these things if we either solve tokenization or simply adapt the tokenizer to relevant tasks. This is already being done for program code, it's just that aside from gotcha arguments, nobody really cares about letter counting that much.

Secondly, the analogy was meant to convey that the intelligence of a system is not at all related to the problems at its interface. No one would say that legally blind people are less insightful or intelligent, they just require you to transform input into representations accounting for their interface problems.

Thirdly, as I thought was obvious, the tokenizer is not a uniform blur. For example, a word like "count" could be tokenized as "c|ount" or " coun|t" (note the space) or ". count" depending on the surrounding context. Each of these versions will have tokens of different lengths, and associated different letter counts. If you've been told that the cube had 10, 11 or 12 trillion constituent parts by various people depending on the random circumstances you've talked to them in, then you would absolutely start guessing through the common answers you've been given.

[pests]

I do agree I've been obtuse, apologies. I think I was just being too literal or something, as I do agree with you.

[Last5Digits]

Apologies from me as well. I've been unnecessarily aggressive in my comments. Seeing very uninformed but smug takes on AI here over the last year has made me very wary of interactions like this, but you've been very calm in your replies and I should have been so as well.