[MiroF]

> Since it lacks common sense and a ton was invested it, the piece posits it is evidence in favor of 'empirical' approaches to intelligence seemingly being wrong and alternatives being a good idea from now on.

It is unclear to me what the distinction between an "empirical" vs not approach even means within this context.

Do nativists a la Chomsky suggest that these "language frameworks" are independent of the basic interactions of neurons in the brain?

If you view human evolution as the learning procedure for building brain structure, GPT-2 seems entirely consistent with the 'nativist' approach, no?