Paul J Philp Avatar
Wetware & SoftwareThe Practice of Human-AI Collaboration
AboutServicesProjects
Resources
Paul J Philp. All rights reserved.
Last updated:
The Coder’s Guide to AI

Part 1 of 5

Series

Next

The Pattern Matching Computer

All Parts in Series

1The AI Transistor2The Pattern Matching Computer3The LLM Operating System4Building AI Apps5Orchestrating Work
Article

The AI Transistor

Sep 26, 2025•5 min read•Last updated: Sep 26, 2025
#AI

The AI Transistor: How a Neural Network Computes (Part 1)#

Introduction: Beyond the AI Computer#

At first, like many, I found learning how large language models (LLMs) and the broader field of AI truly worked was profoundly confusing. It wasn't just complex; it felt fundamentally different from the software systems I had built for decades. The deeper I looked, the more obvious it became that this was an incredibly deep topic, spanning mathematics, computer science and even neuroscience.

Paul Philp Avatar

About Paul Philp

Paul Philp is an experienced software and AI engineer and former founder/CEO with a track record of leading teams, shipping products, and architecting robust systems. He's a team Oscar winner for technical innovation and currently works across the modern AI engineering stack: TypeScript, Effect-TS, Next.js, Vercel AI SDK, and AI orchestration frameworks.

Paul writes Wetware & Software, sharing practical insights on AI engineering and software architecture. He's available for advisory and senior engineering roles focused on AI architecture, system design, and production-ready AI integration.

To make sense of this new landscape, I began to build a mental model. My goal was to understand LLMs not just as black boxes, but as a different kind of computational engine—an "AI computer." I started by mapping the fundamental elements of a neural network onto the familiar components of a traditional CPU architecture. This allowed me to draw parallels and understand the unique way a neural network processes information.

And then I realized: I'm not an expert in CPU architecture, chip layout or material engineering. My understanding of CPUs is exactly as deep as it needs to be to effectively program them. It's that same level of functional understanding—knowing how it computes at its core, without needing to design the transistors ourselves—that I believe is essential for developers approaching LLMs.

Now, let's open the black box a bit and explore these fundamental differences in architecture.

Comparing the Core Building Blocks: CPU vs. Neural Network#

Takeaway from the Comparison Table#

What emerges from this comparison is a fundamental divergence in how these two "computers" manage their very rhythm of operation. A traditional CPU is dictated by its clock—a central, relentless pulse that synchronizes every explicit instruction, every data flow, ensuring precise, sequential computation. In stark contrast, a neural network operates without such a global conductor. Its computations are massively parallel and data-driven, a complex dance orchestrated not by a central tick, but by the dynamic attention mechanism, which will be covered later in this series. This architectural difference is key to understanding the AI computer's unique processing paradigm.

Distinguishing Operating Modes: Predictable Instructions vs. Unpredictable Pattern Matching#

This fundamental architectural difference leads to profoundly distinct operating modes, shaping how we, as engineers, interact with each system. The CPU operates on explicit instructions. When we write code for a CPU, we define precise steps: add these two numbers, check this condition, jump to that line. The output state is entirely predictable, determined by the input and the exact sequence of commands. This predictability is our bedrock, allowing us to build complex logic with a high degree of certainty about the outcome. When a CPU encounters an "unexpected state," it typically indicates a bug in our explicit instructions.

The neural network computer, however, operates on a fundamentally different principle: unpredictable pattern matching. Instead of executing explicit instructions, it processes vast amounts of data, learning to identify and generate patterns based on statistical relationships. When we "program" an LLM, we don't write commands; we provide examples and constraints. The output, while often astonishingly coherent and relevant, emerges from a complex interplay of billions of learned connections. This makes its behavior inherently less deterministic. An "unexpected state" from an LLM often isn't a bug in its code, but a manifestation of novel pattern generation, data biases or the limits of its learned "knowledge." Understanding this distinction is vital for effective collaboration.

Conclusion#

Understanding the fundamental architectural differences between a traditional CPU and a neural network computer is the first step toward mastering AI. It's a shift from explicit, sequential command-following to implicit, parallel pattern recognition. This distinction illuminates why working with LLMs requires a different mindset than traditional programming, forcing us to embrace a new form of collaboration with systems whose behavior isn't always predictable. In the next part of this series, "The LLM Operating System: A New Paradigm for AI Interaction," we will delve deeper into how these unique neural network architectures form a powerful new computational environment, and how developers can effectively interact with its advanced features.

← Back to all posts

More on AI