Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

"Understanding AI": Semantic Grounding in Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.10992 v1 pith:WQXFTNPY submitted 2024-02-16 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords llmsgroundingsemantictheyunderstandlanguagemodelsgenerate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Do LLMs understand the meaning of the texts they generate? Do they possess a semantic grounding? And how could we understand whether and what they understand? I start the paper with the observation that we have recently witnessed a generative turn in AI, since generative models, including LLMs, are key for self-supervised learning. To assess the question of semantic grounding, I distinguish and discuss five methodological ways. The most promising way is to apply core assumptions of theories of meaning in philosophy of mind and language to LLMs. Grounding proves to be a gradual affair with a three-dimensional distinction between functional, social and causal grounding. LLMs show basic evidence in all three dimensions. A strong argument is that LLMs develop world models. Hence, LLMs are neither stochastic parrots nor semantic zombies, but already understand the language they generate, at least in an elementary sense.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Probing the Preferences of a Language Model: Integrating Verbal and Behavioral Tests of AI Welfare

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A proof-of-concept study finds that stated preferences and behavioral choices correlate in some LLMs, but eudaimonic self-reports are unstable across prompt perturbations, leaving AI welfare measurement undetermined.

Pith tools