That’s a huge oversimplification of the way LLMs work.

I'm sticking to what matters for the sake of the argument. Anyone who wants to inform themself further has a plethora of online resources to do so.

They’re not statistical in the way a Markov chain is.

Implied: "you're suggesting that they work like Markov chains, they don't."

In no moment I mentioned or even implied Markov chains. My usage of the verb "to chain" is clearly vaguer within that context; please do not assume words onto my mouth.

They use neural networks, which are a decent analogy for the human brain. The way the synapses between neurons are wired is obviously different, and the way the neurons are triggered and the types of signals they can send to other neurons is obviously different. But overall, similar capabilities can in theory be achieved with either method.

I don't disagree with the conclusion (i.e. I believe that neural networks can achieve human-like capabilities), but the argument itself is such a fallacious babble (false equivalence) that I'm not bothering further with your comment.

And it's also an "ackshyually" given this context dammit. I'm not talking about the bloody neural network, but how it is used.