> The problem here is that yes the occasional errors demonstrate certain flaws in it's understanding of some topic.
No, they demonstrate that the machine does not understand.
> The issue is there are many times where it produces completely novel and creative output that could not have existed in the training data and can only be formulated through complete and understanding of the query it was given.
What have you done to eliminate the possibility that it assembled the words algorithmically and the solution generated is something the reader constructed by assigning meaning to the text response? If the answer "can only be formulated through complete and understanding of the query it was given" then you must have eliminated this possibility.
> Understanding of the world around us is not developed through the lens of a singular model or a singular piece of understanding. We build multiple models of the world and we have varying levels of understanding of each model. It is the same with chatGPT. The remarkable thing about chatGPT understands a huge portion of these models really really well.
Where is the evidence that chatGPT understands a thing?
> There's literally no way it could do the above without understanding what you asked it to do. Read to the end. The end demonstrates awareness of self, relative to the context and task it was asked to perform.
Thats an interpretation of the text output that you assigned based on what the words in the text mean to you. I could just as easily say that Harry Potter is self-aware.
> Yet people illogically claim that for some other topic because chatGPT failed to correctly model the topic it therefore MUST be flawed in ALL of it's understanding of the world. This claim is not logical.
I don't think you understand what we're discussing.