Most of the people who repeat this have hardly any background in neuroscience... so they actually have no clue at all what the process they're claiming LLMs don

Most of the people who repeat this have hardly any background in neuroscience... so they actually have no clue at all what the process they're claiming LLMs don't mirror is. Meanwhile the people who are in neuroscience have posited a Bayesian model to human cognitive function as far back as the 1800s, well before any convenient targets for anthropomorphization existed, and it continued as an area of study until today: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/bayesian-rationality-9780198524496 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/bayesian-rationality... Essentially, in typical techie fashion people with barely any understanding of a topic assume to have mastery ahead of people are the forefront of a non-tech field. _ This a sort of objectification seems equally as rooted in emotion and feelings as the anthropropmization crowd: We don't actually know the answer to the question of if there is some layer of human cognitive function that mirrors LLMs, but it'd cause me great cognitive dissonance/discomfort if the answer is not <insert preferred answer> so I will vehemently fight against any claims to the contrary. To me the answer is to simply accept we don't know, and take whatever tools let us make progress on working with the LLM. If that's borrowing words like "reasoning" and "understanding" and "confabulate" so be it, it's of no loss to anyone.