[cel1ne]

> The argument is that GPT3 has no understanding of the world, just superficial understanding of words and their relationships.

We don't really know what "understanding of the world" means in humans. We just "see it when it's there".

We might be radically different from GPT-3, or we might not. Our way of learning is different in any way.

Something that came to my mind: Various GPT-3 answers resemble answers given by children: Mostly correct, but having misunderstood some crucial point.

In real human learning and conversation these points are easily corrected by feedback by explanation: "You see, the point is no one wears bathing suites to work".

Which would then be incorporated as new wisdom.

Maybe this feedback-mechanism is what GPT-3 is missing. Maybe we should talk to it.