I think Chomsky has a point here, but somewhat ironically, it applies much more broadly, raising doubts about linguistics being the route to understanding the m

I think Chomsky has a point here, but somewhat ironically, it applies much more broadly, raising doubts about linguistics being the route to understanding the mind. One thing grammar does not do is constrain grammatically-correct language to produce only the truth. It is as easy for humans as it is for LLMs to say false things, to construct false reasons for believing those falsehoods, and to be inconsistent about it. The argument Chomsky uses to claim LLMs will never lead to and understanding of the mind can equally be deployed against the prospect of understanding the mind through studying grammar. If anything, the success of LLMs, in producing grammatically-correct language about as well as humans do, is evidence for this position. They also present a significant challenge to the Poverty of Stimulus claim[1], which is often used in support of the universal grammar hypothesis. In the early 20th. century, western metaphysics took what has been called the 'linguistic turn'[2]. Personally, I am deeply skeptical of the proposition that studying human language will - or could, in principle - lead to knowledge about how the world must be, and the ability of people to hold inconsistent beliefs and to argue for falsehoods is one basis for that skepticism. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_of_the_stimulus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_of_the_stimulus [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn