0 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
It is difficult to define the word “understand”. AI’s can use language but some argue they don’t really “understand” language. In a human, you can test whether someone understands a language by talking to them. Before computers, that would have been a sufficient test, but now it isn’t, because LLM’s seem to understand just by learning, essentially, what words go together with other words. So what is the test of “true” understanding?
Comment by diogenesthehopeful at 15/09/2024 at 07:31 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It is difficult to define the word “understand”.
I think when you decide cognition is worthy of your attention the difference between understanding and sensibility will be clear enough to make workable assertions about what it means to understand. The physicalist doesn't have an explanation for understanding, because the laws of physics are understood but they don't explain understanding. That requires logic alone.
So what is the test of “true” understanding?
another poster quoted a giant by saying if you cannot explain quantum mechanics to a six year old then you don't understand it. I would go that far because a six year old doesn't have his formative years behind him. I'd say one should be able to explain QM to an adolescent. Any high school graduate should be able to understand QM at the conceptual level. Doing the math would be challenging for most college graduates and many doctors but at the conceptual level QM can be understood.