| I don't know how I feel about this article, especially around the definition of understanding. I have two children under 6, and if you watch their learning patterns they follow a very much the same path, and mimicry is part of that. They learn the subject matter at hand through repetition, and that then build comprehension which is the basis for understanding. I think ChatGPT has learnt and started to understand language based on the data given to it, it has built some understanding how language is structured as it is able to regurgitate language. It has contextual understanding at some level and contextual awareness. One of the next logical questions would be, does it have intelligence and that I don't think is the case. It understanding is based on its understanding of the language. I think the bike example is a great example, my son is learning to ride a bike. He has no understanding of balance as the article states, he has awareness of it, he knows he needs to peddle to move forward but he has no understanding of inertia, he has to steer but he has no understanding of physics, but he understands all of these components are required and he knows that via data "the experience of learning". I think it would be difficult without prompting to get him to explain his "understanding". Now understanding is great, you can apply learned information and apply it to another subject. So we can use what we have learned from ridding a bike and apply it to a motorbike. I am unsure if this cross domain transfer of understanding is something which ChatGPT can do, but it does a great job of extrapolating data and apply it to learnt rules. |