> Not necessarily. You claimed asking for clarification requires understanding, and then agreed my example showed it asking for clarification. That does logica

> Not necessarily. You claimed asking for clarification requires understanding, and then agreed my example showed it asking for clarification. That does logically necessitate understanding (if ¬U ⇒ ¬C, and C, then U). > It would be much more convincing if they were able to do so consistently. In my experience, they do not. I have a suspicion that your experience as such may largely be due to using chatbots conditioned to directly give an answer - opposed to being representative of fundamental lack of ability. Not to say that LLMs are perfect or at human-level on the task yet, though. What rate of correctly identifying ambiguous sentences would you set? I could collect a dataset and give it a shot.