[bbor]

I don’t disagree with any of your particular points, but I think you’re missing the forest here: their argument is primarily based in empirical results, not a theoretical framework/logical deduction. In other words, they’re trying to explain why LLMs work so well for decoding human neural content, not arguing that they do!

I think any reasonable scientist would a-priori react the same way to these claims as claims that neural networks alone can possibly crack human intuition: “that sounds like sci-fi speculation at best”. But that’s the crazy world we live in…