> It's to recite (or even apply) knowledge. To understand does actually require a world model.

This is a shell game, or a god of the gaps. All you're saying is that the models "understand" how to recite or apply knowledge or language, but somehow don't understand knowledge or language. Well what else is there really?

▲ godelski a day ago | parent [-]

  > Well what else is there really?

Differentiate from memorization.

I'd say there's a difference between a database and understanding. If they're the same, well I think Google created AGI a long time ago.

▲

naasking a day ago | parent [-]

A database doesn't recite or apply knowledge, it stores knowledge.

▲

godelski 21 hours ago | parent [-]

It sure recites it when I query it

	▲	naasking 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It makes perfect sense to say that the database understands your query. It also makes sense to say that the database's factorization of domain knowledge + domain queries exhibit at least a static domain understanding (which still isn't general ala AGI). This is the standard systems response to the Chinese Room. The "general" part comes from whether that static aspect can be made dynamic and extensible. In what sense is a system that can be arbitrarily extended to "recite" or "apply" knowledge not AGI?