We train LLMs like insects, with every capability hard wired into the neural network. We may give LLMs larger neural networks than insects, but functionally the way those neural networks behave is far more like an insect than a vertebrate.

Thanks for the comment. However, I think you might be taking the metaphor a bit too literally and missing the broader point of the article. The dog training metaphor isn't a 1:1 mapping to LLM training. Training a dog aims to adjust the animal's traits to suit human needs, but an untrained dog is already a fully functioning entity. It possesses innate instincts and a baseline 'upbringing' provided by its mother. An untrained LLM, on the other hand, does nothing meaningful on its own. It has to be taught entirely from scratch—including the very foundation that a dog inherently possesses through biology and maternal care. The article is exactly about this: applying this specific type of conditioning (RLHF) to a completely blank slate turns the whole developmental process upside down.