You’re neglecting that my comment was in response to the proposition that “ChatGPT has no understanding of facts or semantics.” If your paper isn’t probative to that point, which I’ve already demonstrated it misconstrues out of apparent ignorance of a wealth of existing philosophical papers, then it’s about as relevant as comparing human body temperature with processor temperatures. “I’m measuring them both with thermometers, so therefore I am using the same criteria for both humans and computers. Game. Set. Match.”
You’re caught up in some sort of weird pedantry while ignoring the overall meaning. In other words, you’re misunderstanding the semantics of this argument.
That’s not what you claimed in your original comment. You said
The paper I posted is literally applying the same criteria to humans and LLMs.
It seems like you are the one applying different criteria?
You’re neglecting that my comment was in response to the proposition that “ChatGPT has no understanding of facts or semantics.” If your paper isn’t probative to that point, which I’ve already demonstrated it misconstrues out of apparent ignorance of a wealth of existing philosophical papers, then it’s about as relevant as comparing human body temperature with processor temperatures. “I’m measuring them both with thermometers, so therefore I am using the same criteria for both humans and computers. Game. Set. Match.”
You’re caught up in some sort of weird pedantry while ignoring the overall meaning. In other words, you’re misunderstanding the semantics of this argument.
Link one or two of those papers?
I’ll do you one better and link to a Wikipedia article that explains things simply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
On the off-chance that you might complain about this not being a paper, there are links to many papers in the references section.
You may also find this interesting, although it’s more about consciousness than understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie