> If the parent failed to do that, I would say they do not have a valid model of chess Surely even the world's foremost chess experts will occasionally make er

> If the parent failed to do that, I would say they do not have a valid model of chess Surely even the world's foremost chess experts will occasionally make errors in such a situation, so what's the point of holding language models to an intelligence standard that even humans can't meet? I see two ways of interpreting this: either language models do approximately learn world models, or else world models aren't necessary for human intelligence EDIT: I see from your other posts in this thread you're probably more inclined to believe the latter statement, which wasn't obvious to me from your first post and I think that explains why there is so much contention in this thread.