> the idea that you can't get a very good statistical approximation to knowing and reasoning via a computer seem naively prone anthropocentrism. I don't think

> the idea that you can't get a very good statistical approximation to knowing and reasoning via a computer seem naively prone anthropocentrism. I don't think this is being questioned in general right now, but rather the claim is: You can't get a very good statistical approximation to knowing and reasoning via _just analyzing the language_. Language is evidently not enough on its own [1]. According to some researchers [2], the system needs to be "grounded" (think of it as being given common sense). Although there's apparently no consensus [3] among scientists on how to _fundamentally_ solve the shortcomings of current systems. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627 [2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BU5bV3X5w65DwSMapKcsr0ZvrMRU_Nbi/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BU5bV3X5w65DwSMapKcsr0ZvrMR... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x10964w00zk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x10964w00zk edit: formatting