And then you say you attach 0 credence whatever, but you give no reasons for why others should buy your points. You don't really seem to have much of a point, anyway.
A neural network, conversely, is a big ball of mud. Impossible to reason about and to test except for whole-system, end-to-end testing, which is impossible to do exhaustively because of the size of the state space. It is, by design, unexplainable and untestable, and therefore unreliable. It's why you use globals in C only judiciously. (I am just rephrasing the article here, not saying anything new.)
And the evidence that it causes practical problems to usefulness is already out there; "hallucinations" are simply errors, just that corporate PR likes to pretend that it's a "feature" and not a bug. This is delusional. A society seeking digitalization should run away from this level of stupidity.
More broadly, I’ve learned to attach 0 credence to any conceptual argument that an approach will not lead somewhere interesting. The hit rate on these negative theories is atrocious, they are often motivated by impure reasons, and the downside is very asymmetric (who cares if you sidestep a boring path? yet how brutal is it to miss an easy and powerful solution?)