The problem still exists

I thought problem was you couldn't get anywhere because of the question, but you're saying the problem is the question didn't get an answer that satisfies your taste?

The problem, as stated by the parent, is that it is "still pretty unclear at a fundamental level what it means to understand, learn, or conceptualize things."

Which Wittgenstein didn't resolve, he describes how to kick the can down the road. Which is fine, every science needs to make assumptions to move on, but in no way is that a "resolution" to the problem of "what it means to understand, learn, or conceptualize things."

A strict definition is almost never required outside maths. We got so far being unable to define "woman" it turns out.

The most naive meaning of understanding, such as "demonstrating ability to apply a concept to a wide range of situations" is good enough for many cases, Goedel be damned.

Agree. But computers are applied math. So it stands to reason that neutral networks require a strict definition

Your brain is a neural network. All education is therefore applied maths as well, right?

The problem doesn't exist in a meaningful sense if one can't define it clearly. Might as well say the wellabigomboopita still exists.