>But the thrust of the critique of next-token prediction or stochastic output is that there isn't "intelligence" because the output is based purely on syntactic relations between words, not on conceptualizing via a world model built through experience, and then using language as an abstraction to describe the world. To the computer there is nothing outside tokens and their interrelations, but for people language is just a tool with which to describe the world with which we expect "intelligences" to cope. Which is what this article is examining.
LLMs model concepts internally and this has been demonstrated empirically many times over the years, including recently by anthropic (again). Of course, that won't stop people from repeating it ad nauseum.
Concepts within modalities are potentially consistent, but the point the author is making is that the same "concept" vector may lead to inconsistent percepts across modalities (e.g. a conflicting image and caption).
LLMs model concepts internally and this has been demonstrated empirically many times over the years, including recently by anthropic (again). Of course, that won't stop people from repeating it ad nauseum.