> the technology behind it doesn't teach these models more than labels and associations this is not much of a technical argument, but it's (very) roughly true so i'll give it a pass for the sake of discussion. > so obviously there's no understanding in there. but this is not obvious to me. enlighten me. > comprehension means knowing what things mean beyond the labels associated with them. so you subscribe to naive signifier-signified semantics? the very existence of llms pretty much refutes it. beyond the labels themselves there is the structure of relationships between the underlying concepts, which is implicit in how humans string those labels together into texts. it's this abstract structure that seems to encapsulate most of the "meaning" of the labels, rather than the sense perceptions associated with the signified phenomena. > llms comprehend things in the same way my calculator "comprehends" math. your calculator doesn't model the structure of mathematics.
Moldova