>> Perhaps by having a dataset of symbols...a model for how to respond to inputs.... > That's the same as saying the machine has some kind of internal model of

>> Perhaps by having a dataset of symbols...a model for how to respond to inputs.... > That's the same as saying the machine has some kind of internal model of the world...as understood by the machine. An object can contain a model of (a part of) the world without actually understanding it (for example, a printed photograph or an abacus does this). The LLM or some machine can have a detailed model of the world--which humans can meaningfully interact with to get outputs--without the machine actually having any true understanding itself. This thread makes me wonder if there are different (nuanced) usages of the word "understanding" at play (and maybe related words too). It also makes me curious--not to pick on the subject, but I think it is relevant: Do you happen hold the view that humans can be described with a purely physical model (mechanical, chemical, electric, or whatever materialistic form[s] of choice)? E.g., that humans are also just machines, however advanced/complex? I hypothesize that such a view might constrain the definition of "understanding" to a subset of its possible meanings, to which the article in the OP might not be constrained. Regardless, I appreciate the discussion.