As I said, the model is vague at best. Regardless of how the information is stored, a child knows that a ball is a thing with tangible behaviors, not just a word that often appears with certain other words. A child knows what truth is, and LLMs rather notoriously do not. An older adult knows that a citation must not only satisfy a form but also relate to something that exists in the real world. An LLM is helpless with material not part of its training set. Try getting one to review a draft of a not-yet-published paper or book, and you'll get obvious garbage back. Any human with an equivalent dollar value in training can do better. A human can enunciate their model, and make predictions, and adjust the model in recognizable ways without a full-brain reset. An LLM can do none of these things. The differences are legion.

LLMs are not just generalists, but dilettantes to a degree we'd find extremely tiresome in a human. So of course half the HN commentariat loves them. It's a story more to do with Pygmalion or Narcissus than Prometheus ... and BTW good luck getting Chad or Brad to understand that metaphor.