The  Loop Facility  is a controversial  extra language  that  lives
inside lisp. Specifically  Zetalisp and Common Lisp's, but the same
idea is true (maybe more true) of the interlisp tradition's  for do
what I mean. 

I was reading one of the papers shared by Jose A Alonso, one of the
infinite repetitions of asking GPT forked chatbots to try answering
CODING CHALLENGE job-screening-data-mining websites (leet coder dot
com or something in this case). 

Aside:   Oh, cool application.  You could trash job screening  data
businesses by using well-motivated  chatbots, who are famously hard
to electronically screen against. 

Anyway, "

ChatGPT [] gained significant  attention upon its release [] due to
its   advanced   natural  language   processing   and  code-writing
capabilities. 

".  I suppose  that business  management  staff are not aware  that
these two things together or at all pre-date Thiele's marketing  by
many decades. 

This is what Lisp's  controversial  Loop Facility is and does. Many
programming  problems  implement nicely using an approach something
like- 

Curryingly   collect  and  maybe destructure  all  these  different
states;    curry  so  that every already  collected  state  can  be
maybe-used  in collecting  later states followed by an explosion of
conditional behaviours depending on what those states are, looping,
aggregating,   summing  various  states  in  passing,   and  either
returning different conjugations of those under various conditions,
but often CONTINUEing  with some automatic notion of logically next
early states until termination. 

That  last  paragraph  has high entropy.   It is hard to boil  that
problem solving strategy - if one even exists in there somewhere  -
down to a clear set of behaviours, and the implied requirements are
quite  unreasonable-  the code that does that is going  to be large
and intricately tangled. 

Perhaps mutual recursion and some kind of von Neumann state is more
beautiful in lots of cases, and can be cooked on its own? 

But  in lisp  we have  the LOOP facility.   It just does  all those
things.  It speaks a special and highly mnemonic  language  that is
both easy to think problems into and thunk answers out of. 

And it does this by accepting  an essay in this formally structured
but  highly mnemonic  language,  and deterministically   generating
efficient  code that does it.  The kind of code being asked  for is
long, filled  with explicit  special  cases and difficult  to write
without this facility. 

So  the difference  is that LISP's  LOOP facility  speaks  its  own
formal  language,   not a naieve but big probabilistic   record  of
groups of words in inputs, 

and  LOOP's  code generation  is deterministic,  not a big  trained
probabilistic blend of likely conjunctions of output words. 

FURTHERMORE consider the cultural distinctions:   LOOP is a part of
the  lisp community,  produced  by it, produced  for it,  and  with
authors   for and against  it littered  through  the language   and
language's history. I believe ANSI Common Lisp 2E's LOOP was due to
Moon, and the Chinual 4E LOOP description is Burke's memo TM-169. 

In  contrast,   GPT  created  chat-bots  are being found  to  match
cultural aspects of questions and answers.   Receiving  the highest
quality answers requires  culturally  matching  the highest quality
scraped programming  code authors'   communities:   And tricks like
asking  for names to namedrop while rephrasing  a code request  are
being discovered to strongly increase chat-bot performance. 

So far many programmers,  especially  web design / general  purpose
programmers  are seeking  to detach the requirement  of tickling  a
chat-bot  code request into 1337 language to get a 1337 answer  and
avoid  problematic  Answer Website  Company  garbage  by protecting
human users from the Natural Language question phrasing requirement
by placing it underneath a computer-friendly formalisation.