When reading a text or listening to a speaker there is the underlying assumption that the speech act was intentional and was meant to convey something. We use t

When reading a text or listening to a speaker there is the underlying assumption that the speech act was intentional and was meant to convey something. We use that assumption to fill in the blanks and to correct anything that is unclear. We do it automatically. This is why lawyers are so annoying. They are trained to suppress this instinct, thus finding loopholes and gaps. When I read a GPT-3 generated text, I catch myself that I do the same thing. I'm very forgiving. Interestingly, with these speech continuation the illusion of somebody being there on the other side, is much stronger. It's like listening to an old Feynman lecture or the like. You don't quite get it, but surely it must make sense, right. It doesn't of course. The box is empty. Or is it?