LLM designs to date are purely statistical models. A pile, a morass of floating point numbers and their weighted relationships, along with the software and hardware that animates them and the user input and output that makes them valuable to us. An index of the data fed into them, different from a Lucene or SQL DB index made from compsci algorithms & data structure primitives. Recognizable to Azimov's definition.
And these LLMs feature no symbolic reasoning whatsoever within their computational substrate. What they do feature is a simple recursive model: Given the input so far, what is the next token? And they are thus enabled after training on huge amounts of input material. No inherent reasoning capabilities, no primordial ability to apply logic, or even infer basic axioms of logic, reasoning, thought. And therefore unrecognizable to Chomsky's definition.
So our LLMs are a mere parlor trick. A one-trick pony. But the trick they do is oh-so vastly complicated, and very appealing to us, of practical application and real value. It harkens back to the question: What is the nature of intelligence? And how to define it?
And I say this while thinking of the marked contrast of apparent intelligence between an LLM and say a 2-year age child.
LLM's seem to have proven themselves to be more than a one-trick-pony. There is actually some resemblance of reasoning and structuring etc.. No matter if directly within the LLM, or supported by computer code. E.g it can be argued that the latest LLMs like Gemini 2.5 and Claude 4 in fact do complex reasoning.
We have always taken for granted you need intelligence for that, but what if you don't? It would greatly change our view on intelligence and take away one of the main factors that we test for in e.g. animals to define their "intelligence".
They most definitely don't. We attach symbolic meaning to their output because we can map it semantically to the input we gave it. Which is why people are often caught by surprise when these mappings break down.
LLMs can emulate reasoning, but the failure modes show that they don't. We can get them to be coincidentally emulating reasoning well enough long enough to fools us, investors and the media. But doubling down on it hoping that this problem goes away with scale or fine tuning is proving more and more reckless.