A model that matches part of the brain should not be treated as if it models all of the brain. What I see you doing here is personifying the model, and drawing

A model that matches part of the brain should not be treated as if it models all of the brain. What I see you doing here is personifying the model, and drawing conclusions from the personification. There is more to how we interact with language than prediction of repitition. You didn't predict anything I have said so far! Yet we are both interacting with the language. We didn't just model LLMs after our brains, either. We pointed them at examples of thought, all neatly organized into the semantic relationships of grammar and story. Don't ignore the utility of language: it stores behavior, objectivity, and interest.