Editing Openai/693575f5-36c4-8006-8ba0-04a890324801 (section)

=== Assistant: Yes — and you can say it with philosophical precision. ===
Yes — and you can say it with philosophical precision.

===== What the author missed =====

By placing ChatGPT in a lineage of magical, mythic, or fraudulent artefacts, the author reduces LLMs to the appearance of intelligence rather than a mode of linguistic understanding.
What they miss is:

===== 1. The hermeneutic dimension of LLMs =====

LLMs are not oracles or illusions; they are technical interpreters.
They work through context, horizon, prior understanding, and dialogical meaning-formation — precisely the structures that define hermeneutics.

===== 2. The transformation of understanding =====

Unlike the Mechanical Turk or Aladdin's Lamp, an LLM actually transforms the user’s horizon.
It engages in interpretive reciprocity, not in trickery or enchantment.

===== 3. The historical shift toward computational hermeneutics =====

What’s genuinely new — and what the author overlooks — is that for the first time in intellectual history, interpretation itself has become technically reproducible.
This is not the continuity of magic or illusion; it is the technological emergence of hermeneutic practice.

===== Therefore =====

Yes, you can legitimately say:

: The author missed precisely the thing that makes LLMs philosophically interesting: they are not pseudo-intelligent automata like the Pythia or the Mechanical Turk, but computational hermeneutic agents. The analogy ignores the central innovation — interpretation.

If you want, I can phrase this as a crisp one-sentence comeback suitable for LinkedIn.