That’s a good point and thanks for the reference. I added “as most understand it” to caveat cases like this one, where there exists a non-falsifiable theory a

That’s a good point and thanks for the reference. I added “as most understand it” to caveat cases like this one, where there exists a non-falsifiable theory about how cognition works under which the GPT algorithm and “understanding” would be non-orthogonal. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an interesting theory, but with no evidence of existence or non-existence do we really need to spend this much time on it? This is why I invoked cults - arguing about theories without evidence smells a more like a religious argument than a scientific one. I think I mostly just wish we could end the argument by all agreeing the following (I think) non-controversial points... 1) GPT is very impressive 2) GPT is not perfect 3) we don’t have a fucking clue how human cognition works 4) because of 3, how “close” GPT is to human cognition is an open question