Or more broadly, LLMs fundamentally don't "understand". They can simulate understanding and generate text/code/whatever, but they don't have will to engage with something holistically and "own" it.

▲

visarga 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I have been trying to define "understanding". Is it when you can predict something that you understood it? Or maybe when you can explain it? Or how about when you can control it? Or invent it.

This time I add another definition "when you can own it".

	▲	bengold14 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		When you can own it - I like that. Humans are still needed to own systems and drive/direct changes. The question is how can we collaborate as organizations and teams to still own it when we don't write the code and can't keep up with the output