Speaking as someone whose professional life depends on an understanding of human thoughts, feelings and sensations, I can't help but have an opinion on this.

To offer an illustrative example

When I'm writing feedback for my students, which is a repetitive task with individual elements, it's original and different every time.

And yet, anyone reading it would soon learn to recognise my style same as they could learn to recognise someone else's or how many people have learned to spot text written by AI already.

I think it's fair to say that this is because we do have a similar system for creating text especially in response to a given prompt, just like these things called AI. This is why people who read a lot develop their writing skills and style.

But, really significant, that's not all I have. There's so much more than that going on in a person.

So you're both right in a way I'd say. This is how humans develop their individual style of expression, through data collection and stochastic methods, happening outside of awareness. As you suggest, just because humans can do this doesn't mean the two structures are the same.

I'd love to hear about any studies explaining the mechanism of human cognition.

Right now it's looking pretty neural-net-like to me. That's kind of where we got the idea for neural nets from in the first place.

My dude it's math all the way down. Brains are not magic.

Universal function approximation - neural networks.

Auto-differentiation - algorithmic calculation of partial derivatives (aka gradients)

Backpropagation - when using a neural network (or most ML algorithms actually), you find the difference between model prediction and original labels. And the difference is sent back as gradients (of the loss function)

Parameter dimensionality - the “neurons” in the neural network, ie, the weight matrices.

If thats your argument, its worse than Statistics imo. Atleast statistics have solid theorems and proofs (albeit in very controlled distributions). All DL has right now is a bunch of papers published most often by large tech companies which may/may not work for the problem you’re working on.

Universal function approximation theorem is pretty dope tho. Im not saying ML isn’t interesting, some part of it is but most of it is meh. It’s fine.

I agree with your first paragraph, but unwinding that emergent behavior really can be impossible. It's not just a matter of taking spaghetti code and deciphering it, ML usually works by generating weights in something like a decision tree, neural network, or statistical model.

Assigning any sort of human logic to why particular weights ended up where they are is educated guesswork at best.

But it is, and it always has been. Absurdly complexly layered statistics, calculated faster than a human could.

Well sure, but as someone else said even heat is statistics. Saying "ML is just statistics" is so reductionist as to be meaningless. Heat is just statistics. Biology is just physics. Forests are just trees.

It's totally statistics, but that second paragraph really isn't how it works at all. You don't "code" neural networks the way you code up website or game. There's no "if (userAskedForThis) {DoThis()}". All the coding you do in neutral networks is to define a model and training process, but that's it; Before training that behavior is completely random.

The neural network engineer isn't directly coding up behavior. They're architecting the model (random weights by default), setting up an environment (training and evaluation datasets, tweaking some training parameters), and letting the models weights be trained or "fit" to the data. It's behavior isn't designed, the virtual environment that it evolved in was. Bigger, cleaner datasets, model architectures suited for the data, and an appropriate number of training iterations (epochs) can improve results, but they'll never be perfect, just an approximation.