> LLMs don't understand. It's mind-boggling to me that large parts of the tech industry think that.
I think you might be tied to a definition of "understanding" that doesn't really apply.
If you prompt a LLM with ambiguous instructions, it requests you to clarify (i.e., extend prompt to provide more context) and once you do the LLM outputs something that exactly meets the goals of the initial prompt, does it count as understanding?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck,or something so close to a duck that we'd be better off calling it that.
I think you might be tied to a definition of "understanding" that doesn't really apply.
If you prompt a LLM with ambiguous instructions, it requests you to clarify (i.e., extend prompt to provide more context) and once you do the LLM outputs something that exactly meets the goals of the initial prompt, does it count as understanding?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck,or something so close to a duck that we'd be better off calling it that.