>We're saying it actually doesn't "know" anything Yeah and I'm saying this is a nonsense statement if you can't create a test (one that would also not disquali

>We're saying it actually doesn't "know" anything Yeah and I'm saying this is a nonsense statement if you can't create a test (one that would also not disqualify humans) that demonstrates this. If you are saying what LLMs do is "fake understanding" then "fake understanding" should be testable unless you're just making stuff up. >All well and good if we were talking about interesting research and had millions of years to let these algorithms prove themselves out, I suppose Did you even read what the commenter I replied to was saying. This is irrelevant. We don't need to wait millions of years for anything.