Help me understand what this guy means by LLMs and language?

Mostly came across this from a blog post here: https://narrativespecies.wordpress.com/2025/08/01/leif-weatherby-language-machine/

Saying that the latest LLMs could pass the turning test and in turn pass us. The point the blog writer later makes is that these LLMs could teach us things about language that we thought we knew but didn't, it's also mentioned by the book in the Amazon review here: https://www.amazon.com/Language-Machines-Cultural-Remainder-Posthumanities/dp/1517919320

There are some odd parts in the blog post like saying that language doesn't need consciousness and artificial intelligence:

"The insistence that the advanced use of language requires consciousness and “artificial intelligence” makes for a fun science fiction story, and hey – we humans are excellent at storytelling. With Language Machines, Leif Weatherby digs deep into storytelling by man and machine. It’s a fascinating, and yes, mind-blowing story."

Which...I'm not really sure what to make of. From what I see just looking over the blog itself the guy reviews books that don't get many views or buys which makes me wonder if the ideas in them are worth regarding. I'm also not sure what to make of the claims that LLMs could teach us better about language then we as the creators of it can, he seems to think so:

"Weatherby pulls this together in the second half of the book, skidding into the 21st century and confronting the hype and hysteria one finds in the press and popular culture to the existence of LLMs. While we’d like to think that we intuitively understand language (we are after all, the “creators” of language), an analysis of how LLMs apparently “create” “meaning” suggests otherwise. Understanding how LLMs algorithmically “speak” can help us understand human language (and ourselves)."

But I thought that LLMs were kinda wonky when it comes to writing things down and being able to "speak" well. The last time I used one it followed a very predictable writing style and didn't really answer my questions. I guess I just want a second opinion on this.

Part of me is saying this is just more AI hype but I'm not up to date on what's up with AI, just that overall it's a net negative. From what I was told about language though it's not as simple as the blogger is making it seem, that much of it is embodied and participatory, and that by it's nature it's incomplete. It's more like a flowing river rather than anything static