It contains the averaged written ghosts of the outcomes of those things (as well as, I am sure, some descriptions of those experiences, attached to descriptions of the outcomes — "so I was sitting on the bench on the common and…" would be routine in a training set derived from me!)

But they are not the things themselves — they are incomplete representations; just words that approximately describe the application of that intuition to the problem at hand.

Think about how you visualise complex code projects in your mind — how it's not quite diagrams or buildings or words but multiple things in a sort of multi-dimensional, itchy space that is satisfied when a really good implementation appears. Think about how often the code you have built retains that wordless shape long after you wrote it down. Think about how impossible it is to adequately describe it.

Coming soon: language models trained on 2000 years of tactile, proprioceptive, spatio-temporal, calorific, olfactory, gustational, humidity, temperature and barometric data.

The downside: the model doesn't always have words to describe what it's feeling.