> There are an infinite number of sentences which describe what "being red" is, most of them have never been written.
Which is exactly how the set of sentences actually written encodes in it the idea of "Redness". It's the "actually written" part that carries information about the real world.
> And there will always be an infinity of sentences which are True but cannot be infered by an LLM -- but can be so, trivially, by a person acquainted with redness.
That's cheating, because "a person acquainted with redness" presumably learned it by sight, which LLMs can't do just yet (at least the widely accessible ones can't). Would you also say that a person born blind also cannot infer those True sentences about redness? Because if they can, that means the concept of redness is capable of being taught through language, and so there's no reason LLMs couldn't pick up on it too.
Which is exactly how the set of sentences actually written encodes in it the idea of "Redness". It's the "actually written" part that carries information about the real world.
> And there will always be an infinity of sentences which are True but cannot be infered by an LLM -- but can be so, trivially, by a person acquainted with redness.
That's cheating, because "a person acquainted with redness" presumably learned it by sight, which LLMs can't do just yet (at least the widely accessible ones can't). Would you also say that a person born blind also cannot infer those True sentences about redness? Because if they can, that means the concept of redness is capable of being taught through language, and so there's no reason LLMs couldn't pick up on it too.