[fxnn]

> When we talk about understanding a simple axiomatic system, understanding means exactly that the entirety of the axioms are modeled and applied correctly 100% of the time.

Yes, but then, when we talk about understanding in LLMs, we talk about existence, but not necessarily about determinism.

Remember that, while chess engines are (I guess?) deterministic systems, LLMs are randomized systems. You give the same context and the same prompt multiple times, and each and every time you get a different response.

To me, this, together with the fact that you have an at least 1-in-10 chance of getting a good move (even for strange scenarios), means that understanding _does exist_ inside the LLM. And the problem following from this is, how to force the LLM to reliably choose the right „paths of thought“ (sorry for that metaphor).