Cool. But this is still stuff that has a “right” answer.
What are you talking about? You wanted evidence that NNs can understand stuff, I showed you evidence.
Math. Math in the form of game rules, but still math.
Yes, and math can represent whatever you want. It can represent language, it can represent physics, it can even represent a human brain. Don’t assume we are more than incredibly complicated machines. If you want to argue “it’s just math”, then show me that anything isn’t just math.
I have seen no evidence that MLs can comprehend the abstract. To know, or more accurately, model, the human experience. It’s not even clear, that given a conscious entity, it is possible to communicate about being human to something non-human.
See? And that’s the handwaving. You’re talking about “the human experience” as if that’s a thing with an actual definition. Why is “the human experience” relevant to whether NNs can understand things?
I am amazed, but not surprised, that you can explain a “system” to an LLM. However, doing the same for a concept, is not something I think is possible.
And the next handwave - what is a concept? How is “the board in Othello” not a concept?