"Look man all reality is just uncountable numbers of subparticles phasing in and out of existence, what's not to understand?"
You can define understanding to require such detail that nobody can claim it; you can define understanding to be so trivial that everyone can claim it.
"Why does the sun rise?" Is it enough to understand that the Earth revolves around the sun, or do you need to understand quantum gravity?
Somewhere along the way from one transistor to a few billion human understanding stops but we still know how it was all assembled together to perform boolean arithmetic operations.
With LLMs, The "knowing" you're describing is trivial and doesn't really constitute knowing at all. It's just the physics of the substrate. When people say LLMs are a black box, they aren't talking about the hardware or the fact that it's "math all the way down." They are talking about interpretability.
If I hand you a 175-billion parameter tensor, your 'knowledge' of logic gates doesn't help you explain why a specific circuit within that model represents "the concept of justice" or how it decided to pivot a sentence in a specific direction.
On the other hand, the very professions you cited rely on interpretability. A civil engineer doesn't look at a bridge and dismiss it as "a collection of atoms" unable to go further. They can point to a specific truss and explain exactly how it manages tension and compression, tell you why it could collapse in certain conditions. A software engineer can step through a debugger and tell you why a specific if statement triggered.
We don't even have that much for LLMs so why would you say we have an idea of what's going on ?
This reminds me of Searle's insipid Chinese Room; the rebuttal (which he never had an answer for) is that "the room understands Chinese". It's just not satisfying to someone steeped in cultural traditions that see people as "souls". But the room understands Chinese; the LLM understands language. It is what it is.
[1] Since it's deterministic, it certainly can be debugged through, but you probably don't have the patience to step through trillions of operations. That's not the technology's fault.
Train a tiny transformer on addition pairs (i.e i.e '38393 + 79628 = 118021') and it will learn an algorithm for addition to minimize next token error. This is not immediately obvious. You won't be able to just look at the matrix multiplications and see what addition implementation it subscribes to but we know this from tedious interpretability research on the features of the model. See, this addition transformer is an example of a model we do understand.
So those inscrutable matrix multiplications do have underlying meaning and multiple interpretability papers have alluded as much, even if we don't understand it 99% of the time.
I'm very fine with simply saying 'LLMs understand Language' and calling it a day. I don't care for Searle's Chinese Room either. What I'm not going to tell you is that we understand how LLMs understand language.
Incidentally, your description of LLMs also describes all software, ever. It's just math, man! That doesn't make you an expert kernel hacker.
You may never get a scientific answer to "how should I prompt the model to achieve <x>", just like you may never get a capital-S scientific answer to "how should I convince people to do X". What would it even mean to "understand people" like this?
You demand too much.
Again, we lack even this much with LLMs so why say we know how they work ?
So why ? Because even in 2026, nevermind 18 and 19, the only way to really know exactly how a neural network will perform trained with x data at y scale is to train it and see. No elaborate "laws", no neat equations. Modern Artificial Intelligence is an extremely empirical, trial and error field, with researchers often giving post-hoc rationalizations for architectural decisions. So no, we do not have any precise models that tell us how a LLM will respond to any query. If we did, we wouldn't need to spend months and millions of dollars training them.
And even for potential LLMs, there are some pretty good extrapolations for overall answer quality based on the amount of data and the amount of training.
We don't have a model for a LLM that does exist will respond to a specific query either.
>For an LLM that exists it's still hard to interpret but it's very clear what is actually happening.
No, it's not and I'm getting tired of explaining this. If you think it is, write your paper and get very rich.
>That's better than you often get with quantum physics when there's a bunch of particles and you can't even get a good answer for the math.
You clearly don't understand any of this.
>And even for potential LLMs, there are some pretty good extrapolations for overall answer quality based on the amount of data and the amount of training.
Oh really ? Lol
Yes we do... It's math, you can calculate it.
> No, it's not and I'm getting tired of explaining this. If you think it is, write your paper and get very rich.
Why would I get rich for explaining how to do math?
> You clearly don't understand any of this.
Could you be more specific?
Quantum physics is stupidly hard to calculate when you approach realistic situations.
A real LLM takes a GPU a fraction of a second.
They're both hard to interpret, please realize I'm agreeing that LLMs are hard to interpret. But they're easier than QM on some other fronts.
And mentioning copenhagen or many-worlds doesn't show that quantum mechanics are easy to interpret, that's about as useful as saying an LLM works like neuron activation.
> Oh really ? Lol
Here's one of many posts about it. https://cameronrwolfe.substack.com/p/llm-scaling-laws