P.S.: In non-behavoristic terms: The term "understanding" is linked not only to the internal semantic field and its structure, as maintained by an individual, b

P.S.: In non-behavoristic terms: The term "understanding" is linked not only to the internal semantic field and its structure, as maintained by an individual, but also to its state of mind. We crucially expect the state of mind to be altered by an "act" of understanding. (Commonly expressed by an utterance like "aha!", which asserts this change in state of mind.) So, do we have to consider a state of mind (of some complexity) or a hypothesis of this, as in a theory of mind, in order to predict the productions of GPT-3, or does this further our hopes in a more precise prediction? Do we have to consider such a theory of mind in order to understand it on our side? Probably not.