text: takes place between individuals who share common ground and are 
  mutually aware of that sharing (and its extent), who have commu- 
  nicative intents which they use language to convey, and who model 
  each others’ mental states as they communicate. As such, human 
  communication relies on the interpretation of implicit meaning 
  conveyed between individuals. The fact that human-human com- 
  munication is a jointly constructed activity [29, 128] is most clearly 
  true in co-situated spoken or signed communication, but we use 
  the same facilities for producing language that is intended for au- 
  diences not co-present with us (readers, listeners, watchers at a 
  distance in time or space) and in interpreting such language when 
  we encounter it. It must follow that even when we don’t know the 
  person who generated the language we are interpreting, we build a 
  partial model of who they are and what common ground we think 
  they share with us, and use this in interpreting their words. 
  
  Text generated by an LM is not grounded in communicative 
  intent, any model of the world, or any model of the reader’s state 
  of mind. It can’t have been, because the training data never in- 
  cluded sharing thoughts with a listener, nor does the machine have 
  the ability to do that. This can seem counter-intuitive given the 
  increasingly fluent qualities of automatically generated text, but we 
  have to account for the fact that our perception of natural language 
  text, regardless of how it was generated, is mediated by our own 
  linguistic competence and our predisposition to interpret commu- 
  nicative acts as conveying coherent meaning and intent, whether 
  or not they do [89, 140]. The problem is, if one side of the commu- 
  nication does not have meaning, then the comprehension of the 
  implicit meaning is an illusion arising from our singular human 
  understanding of language (independent of the model).22 Contrary 