There doesn't need to be anything "magical" about the human mind for human "understanding" not to be particularly closely approximated by performing mathematica

There doesn't need to be anything "magical" about the human mind for human "understanding" not to be particularly closely approximated by performing mathematical transformations on a huge corpus of raster data, even though the latter approach produces very useful results (see also the utility of a pocket calculator vs attempting to skip a billenium or so of natural evolution to grow an organism motivated to learn multiplication in a petri dish, or parse human minds to figure out the elements of brain state associated with performing a calculation) GPT-3 is far, far better at generating descriptions of loving humanity than the average dog. But it's pretty obvious that the dog's goal formation and excitement hormones aren't particularly similar to letter-by-letter ASCII output probability calculations on a database, and that GPT-3 has no more grasp of the dog's love of humanity in general and this human in particular than the dog has of Shakespeare. "Thought" and intelligible results are essentially orthogonal, which limits the feasibility of training the former...