[dns_snek]

> The fact that at one point it gave you the correct answer is indicative that an aspect of it understands the concept.

Having a conceptual understanding means that you always provide the same answer to a conceptually equivalent question. Producing the wrong answer when a question is rephrased is indicative of rote memorization.

The fact that it provided the right answer at one point is only indicative of memorization, not understanding which is precisely the difference between sometimes getting it right and always getting it right.

[ninetyninenine]

>Having a conceptual understanding means that you always provide the same answer to a conceptually equivalent question. Producing the wrong answer when a question is rephrased is indicative of rote memorization.

False. I can lie right? I can shift. I don't need to be consistent. And I don't need to consistently understand something. I can understand something right now and suddenly not understand later. This FITS the definition of understanding a concept.

But If I gave an answer that has such a low probability of being correct, and the answer is correct, then the answer arrived at by random chance. If the answer wasn't arrived at by random chance it must be reasoning AND understanding.

The logic is inescapable.

[dns_snek]

> I can understand something right now and suddenly not understand later. This FITS the definition of understanding a concept.

Not any definition that I would agree with, that's for sure.

[ninetyninenine]

You must agree with it. The fact I can formulate a sentence with it indicates it fits with the colloquial definition of the word. Every human recognizes it, even you. You’re just being stubborn.

When I say I can understand something now and then not understand something later it doesn’t violate the definition of the word. Now you are making a claim that your personal definition of understanding is violated but that’s also a lie. It’s highly unlikely.

First of all death. I understand something now. Then I die, I don’t understand something later due to loss of consciousness.

Amnesia. I understand something now and I don’t understand something later due to loss of memory.

In both cases someone understood something now and didn’t later. Every human understands this conceptually. Don’t lie to my face and say you don’t agree with the definition. This is fundamental.

The act of understanding something now and then not understanding something later exists as not only some virtual construct by human language but it exists in REALITY.

What happened here is that when I pointed out the nuances of the logic you were too stubborn to reformulate your conclusion. It’s typical human behavior. Instead you are unconsciously re-scaffolding the rationale in order to fit your pre existing idea.

If you’re capable of thinking deeper you’ll be able to see what I’m in essence talking about this:

In the gap between prompt and response. The LLM is capable of understanding the prompt and capable of reasoning about the prompt. It does so on an ephemeral and momentary basis. We can’t control when it will do it and that’s the major issue. But it does do it often enough that we know the LLM has reasoning capabilities however rudimentary and inconsistent because the answer it arrives at via the prompt is too low probability to be arrived at using any other means OTHER than reasoning.