> a machine may be programmed to act like it understand something without understanding as we consider it usually There's a (maybe subtle) point being implied

> a machine may be programmed to act like it understand something without understanding as we consider it usually There's a (maybe subtle) point being implied in this statement: it assumes the idea that we'd be able to poke the AI in some way that makes sense to us that would demonstrate that the AI doesn't "understand". As a trivial example, it's possible to have an extended conversation with chat gpt about ways to treat male pattern baldness, and then ask it "what do you think the likelihood is that I am balding?" and have chat gpt reply along the lines of "I have no knowledge of your physical body." (I made that example up based on previous conversations -- chat gpt might do better in real life) But if chat gpt were also able to answer that question reasonably -- and every other question we might think to ask, all using its current (non-"understanding") method -- then can we even say that it doesn't "understand as we consider it usually" if we can't demonstrate that it doesn't?