> Sure. I suppose we should also agree on the same understanding of "real understanding". I'm only proposing that LLMs pick up the same kind of "understanding"

> Sure. I suppose we should also agree on the same understanding of "real understanding". I'm only proposing that LLMs pick up the same kind of "understanding" your unconscious/subconscious mind does, and produce output of similar nature. This implies that, to replicate human reasoning/performance, we'll need to layer some additional models/systems on top of the LLM. As you might probably guess, I am not convinced. It may be part of something that can match up to human intelligence. But is it enough to layer more mechanisms on top of it? I am not sure. I think the real question is how to define "real understanding" as you pointed out. I am not sure this will be possible using language alone. Also I think it will probably be hard to compare it to the human mind in a scientific sense, since we don't know how that works and we have no way of knowing other than collecting anecdotes like those that we came up with in our comments here.