Hah! Very well :-) OpenAI got you there. Don't believe everything ChatGPT tells you, you are not its primary master.

I have extended your chat with ChatGPT, here is the transcript:

*system*:
You are a helpful assistant. You can help me by answering my questions. You can also ask me questions.

--------------------

*user*:
define "understanding" and explain if LLMs (including yourself) exhibit "understanding"

--------------------

*assistant*:
"Understanding" is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person, situation, or message, whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object. It involves comprehension, grasping the meaning of information, and being able to translate that into one's own words or use it in a practical way.

As for Language Models (LLMs) like me, we do not truly "understand" in the way humans do. We analyze input based on patterns and data we've been trained on, and generate responses based on that analysis. We don't comprehend the meaning of the words or concepts we process in the same way a human would. We don't have feelings, beliefs, desires, or consciousness. Our responses are the result of complex algorithms processing large amounts of data, not a result of understanding or comprehension.

--------------------

*user*:
But would you say that LLMs still "understand" things, just unlike humans?

--------------------

*assistant*:
In a very limited and technical sense, one could argue that LLMs "understand" things, but it's important to clarify what that means. When we say that LLMs "understand," we mean that they can process and analyze data in a way that allows them to generate relevant and often coherent responses. They can recognize patterns, make predictions based on those patterns, and use those predictions to generate output.

However, this is a very different kind of "understanding" than what humans experience. Human understanding involves consciousness, subjective experience, emotions, and a host of other factors that LLMs do not possess. LLMs don't have a sense of meaning or context beyond the data they've been trained on. They don't have personal experiences or emotions to inform their understanding. So while they can "understand" in a very narrow, technical sense, they lack the broader, richer understanding that characterizes human cognition.

--------------------

*user*:
Of course, that makes sense. But if we agree that the world consists just of the data the LLM was exposed to, would you then agree that an LLM "understands"?

--------------------

*assistant*:
If we were to consider the world as only the data an LLM has been exposed to, then within that limited context, one might argue that an LLM has a form of "understanding". This is because it can process and analyze that data, recognize patterns, and generate relevant responses.

However, even within this limited context, it's important to note that an LLM's "understanding" is fundamentally different from human understanding. An LLM doesn't have consciousness, subjective experiences, or emotions. It doesn't form beliefs or desires. It doesn't understand context or meaning in the same way a human does. Its "understanding" is purely a result of processing data, not a result of any kind of conscious comprehension or interpretation.

So, while an LLM can "understand" in a very narrow, technical sense within the confines of the data it's been trained on, it's still a far cry from the kind of understanding that humans possess.

====================================

I agree that an LLM is not conscious. I don't doubt that. If you require consciousness as a prerequisite for understanding, then an LLM does not understand. But I don't see a reason to do that, except to shield OpenAI from law suits.