Can you prove that? Because understanding ultimately is the ability to map to abstractions and GPT4 and other models are certifiably able to abstract.

The onus is on you to prove that they do understand.

One may not simply claim that a machine ‘understands’ because it appears to. Now we’re actually in the much-misunderstood Occam’s razor: that the theory which introduces the fewest new assumptions is the most likely correct.

The assumption that a machine ‘understands’ — is capable of such a thing — is new, and requires extreme justification.

> Can you prove that?

Yes. One can easily construct a conversation where it is obvious that ChatGPT doesn't understand.

Ya that’s not how proof works. People can do the same with humans. Not understanding things happens to be not a sign for the lack of capacity of understanding in humans.