3 ms·
> For a definition of "understands" that resists rigor and repeatability, sure. If we had such a definition that was rigorous, we would not care about LLM rese
by SR2Z 1y ago
> For a definition of "understands" that resists rigor and repeatability, sure.
If we had such a definition that was rigorous, we would not care about LLM research and would simply just build machines to understand things for us :)
- ajross 1y agoFor a sufficiently loose definition of "would simply just", yes. Handwaving away the idea of actually building the thing you think you understand as unimportant is exactly why philosophy is failing us in this moment.
- SR2Z 1y agoPhilosophy failed us by not producing any compelling definitions of understanding. If it did, we would BUILD IT. I'm not handwaving it away. The biggest barrier to AGI is that we simply don't understand what intelligence is in any useful way.