[calf]

Well, if neural nets are nothing more than their optimization problem then why isn't there a mathematical proof of this already?

And why isn't that reductionism? We don't say human learning is merely the product of millions of years of random evolution, and leave it at that. So if we take a position on reductionist account of learning, then how do we prove it or disprove it?

Are there arguments that don't rest on our gut feelings? Otherwise this is just different experts factions arguing that "neural nets are/aren't superautocomplete / stochastic parrots" but with more technobabble.