Debate erupts: we understand LLMs far better than the human brain, researcher argues
AlexTensor · x · 2026-09-27
A debate flared on X over whether LLMs truly reason. Researcher Aran Nayebi pushed back on GradyBooch's dismissal of LLMs as "statistical engines walking a static manifold," noting that human brains are also non-deterministic statistical engines navigating the environment—yet we don't deny humans reason.
@andrewprock countered that claiming we understand the brain anywhere near as well as LLMs is absurd: "we can build an LLM, but we can't build a brain," calling the professor-level sloppiness unacceptable.
The core tension: statistical non-determinism isn't proof of no reasoning, and buildability shouldn't be the sole yardstick of understanding.
More from AGI Musings
- Nicholas Carr: The 'Rational Consumer of Ideas' Is a Myth, So Is the Informed Citizen — round · 2026-09-27
- Researcher: mesa-optimisation and instrumental convergence key to communicating AI risk — dioscuri · 2026-09-27
- Chip Design Is a Loop, Not a Flow: Why AI's Role in Silicon Will Be Iterative — ai · 2026-09-27
- 'Stochastic parrot' debate reignites: researchers clash over the 2021 critique's relevance — FlorianGallwitz · 2026-09-27
- The 'Wise Box' satire: scaling logic pushed to its absurd conclusion — ludwigABAP · 2026-09-27
- Mechanical engineers are next: CAD/CAM practitioners brace for the AI wave — JoeJustice · 2026-09-27