Imho LLM's are just a least-square algorithm on steroids [0]. Their conceptual inventor is arguably Carolus Fridericus Gauss (30 April 1777 – 23 February 1855).

Imho LLM's are just a least-square algorithm on steroids [0]. Their conceptual inventor is arguably Carolus Fridericus Gauss (30 April 1777 – 23 February 1855). In any case, if he would somehow reappear today he would immediately grasp how they work despite skipping a few centuries. Assuming he would not be promptly hired by some FAANG to boost their AI prestige, he would likely proceed to sharply criticize the cargo cult AI movement. He would invent a few new classes of neural networks for breakfast but crucially, he might construct a meta-theory about how, when and why something based on least-squares can convincingly fit the structure of a corpus of human generated information artifacts. The article does a good job to review of the various loose arguments [1] which point to the vast difference between human intelligence and least-square type models. It is unlikely to move the debate forward though. AI "ultras" have developed a sophistry that negates any intelligent discussion. It consists of repeating ad nauseam: the brain is an input-output machine that learns on data, software is an input-output machine that learns on data, ergo, software = brain, and ergo, it is only a matter of (unspecified) time before super-software becomes super-brain. [0] This stance does not reduce their utility, it just removes the metaphysics [1] They are loose because we know so little about how the higher functions of the brain come about and work. E.g., when Gauss invented the least-squares method something remarkable happened in his brain that is unlikely to have much to do with least-squares. The fact that not every human is Gauss does not mean that this capability is not innate and latent in the structure of all human brain.