We know how to build it. We don't understand how it's producing the output it does based off what we give it
We know exactly how llms work (relatively simple maths), and to a large extent even why they work (backpropagation updates weights to more closely approximate the desired function). There are open questions relating to LLMs of course - we don't understand what the space of potential LLM-like things looks like and how the features in that space relate to subjective performance (although note that transformers were designed based on a theory that they would perform better, not just randomly generated or inspired by the muse). We also don't know to what extent the output of LLMs can be approximated by simpler symbolic systems, or how to extract such systems from LLMs when they do exist. Those are really interesting questions, but they're not questions about 'how LLMs work'.
I dislike the 'LLMs are magic' framing that seems to be taking over the world. Nobody thinks that Taylor expansion is magical, but LLMs are doing the same sort of thing - approximating a function through a bunch of weights on a bunch of simpler functions. Just because the function we're approximating (intelligent output) is not known in advance (but can be sampled), and multi-dimensional does not fundamentally change how mysterious the process is.
Cloning animals or even humans did not automatically make us understand how brains work. In fact, these were quite unrelated endeavors.
> I dislike the 'LLMs are magic' framing that seems to be taking over the world
Don't take that out on me. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is a lack of determinism (mathematically provable, per se) in our current understanding of all AI (LLM included). There are many attempts to solve this problem. I've sat in on seminars about it myself. So far, we're not there yet
I agree. It's not copying that I'm saying is understanding, it's modelling.
> I'm saying there is a lack of determinism (mathematically provable, per se)
What do you mean by a lack of determinism in this case?
But we actually can't! We can build a program that can build a program that is the LLM, which is not the same! I'd argue that you're right insofar as training is concerned. We understand training very well. But the actual model, how it operates, what it actually knows, we don't know how to build that, we don't know what weights to put where.
Malbolge is an esoteric programming language designed to be impossible to use. The first program written in it wasn't written by a human, it was written by another program.
But since then, with that working program to learn from, people have figured out how to write programs in malbolge: https://lutter.cc/malbolge/tutorial/cat.html
We do not understand language, grammar, music, only partly emotions, or especially sentience and consciousness. Further, we don't understand how the disparate systems are integrated together.
The comparison itself is pretty telling; that the brain and AI work so similarly in specific ways