[goatsneez]

Im not sure why this got downvoted, its just an opinion reasonably argued. Of cause this view is prevalent among younger second-hand intellectual class as far as I can observe. We had many historical precedents like that, eg. when Newtonian physics occurred, when quantum 'brain' occured, etc.

Actual researches returns unequivocal no as far as LLMs being anything like our brain or a language model (worth googling for research how NNs are un-able to simulate any functionality of actual brain). In fact, even the NN concept as such is a pretty much a failure as an analogy to the brain. NN was in fact (many have argued) a marketing term more than anything.

Of cause, the underlying phenomenology is worth to question/investigate and research further, in both domains (NN and human learning). The failure of NN analogy to the brain, I would argue, is the same as failure of todays (hyped and false) analogy of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Nature generally does not optimize as humans to a single metric or a variable. On the contrary, collectively, nature seem to be more concerned with stability/robustness than any individual or a single group fitness. That statements would take too long to unpack, but I take it a better model to start with...(some researches already had began of a decade or so).