> No, the argument is "this behavior is similar enough to human behavior that using it as evidence against <claim regarding LLM capability that humans have> is specious"

I'm not really following. LLM capabilities are self-evident, comparing them to a human doesn't add any useful information in that context.

> LLMs are characterized by a lack of self-reflective information. When critical input is missing, the algorithm will craft a narrative around the available, but insufficient information resulting in sensible nonsense (e.g. neural disorders such as somatoparaphrenia)

You're just drawing lines between superficial descriptions from disparate concepts that have a metaphorical overlap. It's also wrong. LLMs do not "craft a narrative around available information when critical input is missing", LLM confabulations are statistical, not a consequence of missing information or damage.

>LLM capabilities are self-evident

This is undermined by all the disagreement about what LLMs can do and/or how to characterize it.

>LLM confabulations are statistical, not a consequence of missing information or damage.

LLMs aren't statistical in any substantive sense. LLMs are a general purpose computing paradigm. They are circuit builders, the converged parameters define pathways through the architecture that pick out specific programs. Or as Karpathy puts it, LLMs are a differentiable computer[1]. So yes, narrative crafting in terms of leveraging available putative facts into a narrative is an apt characterization of what LLMs do.

[1] https://x.com/karpathy/status/1582807367988654081