Right, that was one of the reasons why I put the word in quotes. But I'm sure that if one were to define "understanding" with regard to humans, then what the AI does would be far from it. I might be terribly wrong here though, and AI could be just one corner away from real understanding.
> But I'm sure that if one were to define "understanding" with regard to humans, then what the AI does would be far from it.
We have a bad habit of over-estimating our abilities, so I wouldn't bet too much money on that proposition.
Sure, but I'm not saying that human "understanding" is "better", only different from current AI. But who knows, I could be wrong and at a certain layer of abstraction they might be quite similar.
It should be noted that we don't know what "understanding" entails, so we don't even know if it's a coherent concept, or even a property humans have.