> That‘s irrelevant, too, because nothing indicates that the actual transformer of, say, GPT or the training is in any way connected to such an expression of the human brain.

It's not irrelevant, it was merely the premise for the following point, which was that transformers are trained to learn a function. Since they're Turing complete, they can thus hypothetically implement any function, including the function governing human speech, as I described.

If transformers were not Turing complete, then they arguably would not be computationally powerful enough to model the brain which we know is Turing complete.

What is irrelevant is trying to dismiss transformers as intelligent, or like the brain, simply because they're "merely matrix multiplications".