Pith. sign in

LLMs' Understanding of Natural Language Revealed

1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are the result of a massive experiment in bottom-up, data-driven reverse engineering of language at scale. Despite their utility in a number of downstream NLP tasks, ample research has shown that LLMs are incapable of performing reasoning in tasks that require quantification over and the manipulation of symbolic variables (e.g., planning and problem solving); see for example [25][26]. In this document, however, we will focus on testing LLMs for their language understanding capabilities, their supposed forte. As we will show here, the language understanding capabilities of LLMs have been widely exaggerated. While LLMs have proven to generate human-like coherent language (since that's how they were designed), their language understanding capabilities have not been properly tested. In particular, we believe that the language understanding capabilities of LLMs should be tested by performing an operation that is the opposite of 'text generation' and specifically by giving the LLM snippets of text as input and then querying what the LLM "understood". As we show here, when doing so it will become apparent that LLMs do not truly understand language, beyond very superficial inferences that are essentially the byproduct of the memorization of massive amounts of ingested text.

fields

cs.CL 1

years

2025 1

verdicts

CONDITIONAL 1

representative citing papers

Potemkin Understanding in Large Language Models

cs.CL · 2025-06-26 · conditional · novelty 6.0

LLMs frequently pass definition questions yet fail to use the same concepts in classification, generation, and editing tasks, a gap the authors call potemkin understanding.

citing papers explorer

Showing 1 of 1 citing paper.

  • Potemkin Understanding in Large Language Models cs.CL · 2025-06-26 · conditional · none · ref 53 · internal anchor

    LLMs frequently pass definition questions yet fail to use the same concepts in classification, generation, and editing tasks, a gap the authors call potemkin understanding.