I mean, that's kinda exactly Chomsky's point, minus the implication (perhaps malinferred) that human-like linguistic is an inevitable or universal characteristi

I mean, that's kinda exactly Chomsky's point, minus the implication (perhaps malinferred) that human-like linguistic is an inevitable or universal characteristic of intelligent minds. There's lots of animals that have very complex brains, and that engage in very complex behaviors - the fact that none of them have even a hint of linguistic ability seems like a strong indicator that these faculties are a human-specific evolution, and not just... well IDK how to even sum up an anti-UG/GG view. "Kids just sorta figure it out" I guess? Although who knows! As Chomsky likes to say, this whole field is in a pre-Galilean state due to the impossibility of conducting comparative studies EDIT: Oh just realized you were the parent comment. Well I'd say the small NN vs. LLM example still doesn't convince me of the likelihood of your statement as I understand it; it goes without saying that lots of animals are much better at intuitive understandings of physics (well, kinetics at least) than humans. You ever seen those snakes that jump from tree to tree? craziest shit you'll ever see