Aka. the Chinese room argument. However, I'm not so sure us people are little more than just pattern matching machines. When I start to talk (or write, as I'm doing now), the words kind of just flow out. I can make the argument, that I understand the "real" world, but do I really?
> I'm not so sure us people are little more than just pattern matching machines
Yes that's what leads to multiple definition of what knowledge really is. Yann LeCun believe we are more than just that, hence why he is saying GPT-3 would have no knowledge.
It all depends on your definition of knowledge. Under a certain definition you could say that GPT-3 knows basically nothing.
If someone teaches me to repeat perfectly something very smart in a language I don't know, without explaining to me what that thing is, do I have knowledge about this?
The same argument can be made about those kind of models, the knowledge they have is about the structure of the language and what word is most likely to come next, but they have no way to ground those words in actual relation with the world.