> The sense data your brain ingests does not map perfectly or even particularly closely to the real physical world we inhabit. I never argued otherwise, though

> The sense data your brain ingests does not map perfectly or even particularly closely to the real physical world we inhabit. I never argued otherwise, though being aware that there is a physical world that I can interact with helps! The point is that the only reason the LLM's transformation of syntax approximated an Othello board was the unusually perfect correspondence between permutations, syntax and efficient storage that seldom exists. In other circumstances your LLM vectors are modelling language constructs, lies and other abstractions that only incidentally touch on world and brain state. The term "understanding" is generally used by humans to refer to how humans model reality[1] and need not imply completeness. But it also implies that a model isn't extremely dissimilar to humans in what its parsed and how its parsed it. Or to slightly alter your example, if a bat argued that following the bat swarm well enough to locate the exit didn't mean humans had achieved "true echolocation", I'd have to agree with them. I mean, a photograph and a pocket calculator are also representations of some aspect of the state of the world, sometimes even representing a particular subset of the world information in sufficient fidelity to allow humans to make much better predictions about it. But fewer people seem to wish to stan for the capacity of the calculator or the bitmap to have "real understanding" of the outputs they emit, even though fundamentally the LLM has much in common with them and far less in common with the human... [1]the potential for debate around such definitions underlines the paucity of language...