> The fact that it is useful for finding patterns that may be different than humans tend to find is not an indication of understanding of the underlying data.

> The fact that it is useful for finding patterns that may be different than humans tend to find is not an indication of understanding of the underlying data. Without invoking your own self-awareness as an argument, how do you know that other people "understand" stuff, and aren't merely "finding patterns"? In other words, in what way do you define "understanding", such that you can be sure that LLMs have no such thing? > there is no mechanisms for it to have an 'internal model of the world' in their current form. How do you know that? We don't even know why humans have an internal model of the world. What if internal modelling of the world is just sufficiently-complex pattern-matching?