If we apply that same thought process to philosophy and reason, how can you define it without creating boundaries of what it is not?
"A philosophy of LLMs" - has no reference point without being grounded in human experience.
It is only meaningful when we apply what it means to humans.
"a philosophy of a bash script." does not make sense. Only "philosophy of the action of writing the bash script, of which this is an artifact of" - the human who wrote it intentionally.
LLMs apply statistics to mash inputs and produce outputs, almost like `cat` with extra steps: We can't ask for "what was the philosophy behind the action `cat` applied" - why would we bother asking about the philosophy of an LLM? Better questions would be the philosophy of those who prompt it, built it, the material that went into it, the people who write the safeguards, the people who architected it. Etc.
It is not an isolated environment without reference points.