[katmannthree]

> one can always claim the {entity} is just emulating understanding.

I've yet to see a convincing argument that humans are any different. They're sometimes better at pretending to understand things, but at the end of the day both humans and ChatGPT have a small handful of things which they functionally understand[0] and a larger body of knowledge which is only partially integrated.

Chomsky has disappeared up his own intestinal tract on this one. One can quibble about intelligence until the end of time, but the real question is that of utility -- which they certainly do have, in ever-increasing scope and measure.

[0]: i.e. have synthesized the object and can properly explain and apply it in other contexts

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I think you have an interesting point. How many of us actually understand how most of our current advancements work? If society as we know it ended now, would I be able to recreate even the basic niceties ( fire, electricity, clean water, stable food supply, ice cars, circuits and so on )?

We use all those amazing tools while knowing only a fraction on how they actually work ( or what to do when they break ). Do we merely mimic or do we understand? GPT brought us to an interesting philosophical ledge.

edit: somewhat related tangent

My extended family member recently claimed she is a conscious consumer unaffected by advertising and therefore not concerned about targeted ads. Is she conscious if she picks what everyone around her picks as a way to fit into society or does she understand her choice, underlying forces and simply opts into them?