[xp84]

So true! We basically define those words almost self-referentially. Understanding is what human brains do, so by definition nothing else but a human can 'understand' complex things (we say).

We make only slight allowances for animals, allowing that they can "understand" but only simple things.

As this tech gets better, those who cling to that definition are going to get more and more uncomfortable, and tie themselves into more and more logical knots trying desperately to explain why it "doesn't count."

[lxgr]

A similar thing has happened (and arguably is still happening) when it comes to animal cognition.

"The only species capable of recognizing itself in the mirror. Ok, recognizing itself in the mirror and object permanence. Ok, all of that and mourning its dead. Ok, hang on for a minute..."