I make a point of mentioning when I post generative content, which I generally try to avoid doing (some automated summaries of some falling knives aside).

Maybe I should use more generative content. It would certainly help my credibility to not misplell Chomsky's name.

I should also note that Chomsky himself does not believe LLMs possess general intelligence - https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1056813

We investigate several conceptions of linguistic structure to determine whether or not they can provide simple and "revealing" grammars that generate all of the sentences of English and only these. We find that no finite-state Markov process that produces symbols with transition from state to state can serve as an English grammar. Furthermore, the particular subclass of such processes that produce n-order statistical approximations to English do not come closer, with increasing n, to matching the output of an English grammar [...]

I don't know. There is intelligence or something approximating it encoded into the relationship between words and in LLMs. Whether or not that can match human cognition is another question. The mathematician in me has to question, as a necessary precondition to answering that question - do we even know what human cognition is, of if it is even singular in nature.

At any rate, Chomsky, not Chomski, and happy Friday.