They don't. Solve tasks, I mean. There's not a single task you can throw at them and rely on the answer.

Could they solve tasks? Potentially. But how would we ever know that we could trust them?

With humans we not only have millennia of collective experience when it comes to tasks, judging the result, and finding bullshitters. Also, we can retrain a human on the spot and be confident they won't immediately forget something important over that retraining.

If we ever let a model produce important decisions, I'd imagine we'd want to certify it beforehand. But that excludes improvements and feedback - the certified software should better not change. If course, a feedback loop could involve recertification, but that means that the certification process itself needs to be cheap.

And all that doesn't even take into account the generalized interface: How can we make sure that a model is aware of its narrow purpose and doesn't answer to tasks outside of that purpose?

I think all these problems could eventually be overcome, but I don't see much effort put into such a framework to actually make models solve tasks.

> Also, we can retrain a human on the spot and be confident they won't immediately forget something important over that retraining.

I don’t have millennia, but my more than 3 decades of experience interacting with human beings tell me this is not nearly as reliable as you make it seem.

There is no guarantee that a human would solve the task correctly. Therefore, according to your logic, we can say that humans do not solve tasks either.

To claim that only humans can accurately solve a task using words and wisdom is to give humans too much credit. They are not that lofty, sacred, or absolute.