I thought this was an inciteful comment. Language is a kind of 'view' (in the model view controller sense) of intelligence. It seems to signify a thought or meme. But, language is imprecise and flawed. It's a poor representation since it can be misinterpreted or distorted. I wonder if language based AIs are inherently flawed, too.

Sorry, but you oversimplify a lot here, it hurts. Language can express and communicate human thought, sure, but human thought is more than language. Human thought includes emotions, experiences, abstract concepts, etc. that go beyond what can be expressed through language alone. LLMs are excellent at generating text, often more skilled than the average person, but training data and algorithms limit LLMs. They can lack nuances of context, tone, or intent. TL;DR.: Understanding language doesn't imply understanding human thought.

I'd love to know how you even came to your conclusion.

"Mastery of language is mastery of human thought." is easy to prove false.

The current batch of AIs is an excellent data point. These things are very good at language, and they still can't even count.

The average celebrity provides evidence that it is false. People who excel at science often suck at talking, and vice-versa.

We didn't talk our way to the moon.

Even when these LLMs master language, it's not evidence that they're doing any actual thinking, yet.