When a human interacts with a language model, something happens that cannot be dismissed:
- questions are answered,
- interpretations are formed,
- meanings are taken up and responded to.
From the perspective of the user:
the exchange is meaningful.
This is not an illusion.
But neither is it evidence that:
the model itself construes.
The task now is to account for this without collapsing the distinction we have established.
1. The Site of the Confusion
The confusion arises because:
- meaningful interaction is observed,
- and the system is one of the participants.
From this, it is inferred:
meaning must be distributed across the interaction,or shared between human and machine.
This inference is natural.
It is also incorrect.
2. What Is Actually Coupled
In interaction, several distinct organisations are brought into relation:
- the model’s structured output generation,
- the human’s semiotic organisation (construal),
- and the ongoing coordination of exchange.
These are not the same kind of thing.
They must not be collapsed.
What occurs is:
coupling across a cut.
3. The Role of the Model
The model contributes:
- highly structured linguistic output,
- sensitive to prompts,
- capable of sustaining coherence.
This output:
- constrains what can be taken up,
- shapes the trajectory of interaction,
- and enables coordination.
But it does not:
construe.
4. The Role of the Human
The human participant:
- interprets the output,
- takes it as meaningful,
- integrates it into a semiotic system.
This is where:
- “aboutness” arises,
- distinctions are made,
- meanings are formed.
Construal is located here.
located.
5. Interaction Without Shared Meaning
Because the interaction is coordinated, it appears as if:
- meaning is jointly produced,
- or co-constructed between human and system.
But coordination does not imply:
shared semiotic organisation.
What is shared is:
- a trajectory of exchange,
- a pattern of interaction.
What is not shared is:
construal itself.
6. Coupling Without Collapse
The relation can now be stated precisely:
- the model provides structured output,
- the human provides construal,
- and the interaction unfolds as coupled coordination.
These constrain one another:
- output shapes interpretation,
- interpretation shapes subsequent prompts,
- the loop stabilises over time.
But at no point does:
- the model begin to construe,
- or meaning migrate into the system.
7. Why the Illusion Persists
The illusion of shared meaning arises because:
- the coupling is tight,
- the output is highly responsive,
- and the interaction is continuous.
This creates:
the appearance of a single system with distributed meaning.
But this is a misdescription.
What we have is:
two distinct organisations, tightly coupled across a boundary.
8. No Transfer of Meaning
Meaning is not:
- transmitted from human to model,
- nor generated within the model and received by the human.
Because:
meaning is not a substance that moves.
It arises:
- in construal,
- under conditions of coupling,
- without being located in the coupling itself.
9. Reframing the Interaction
Under constraint, we can state:
LLM interaction is a site where structured output and semiotic construal are coupled without collapsing into a single system.
This explains:
- why interaction is meaningful,
- without attributing meaning to the model.
Closing Formulation
Meaning does not reside in the model.
It does not emerge from structure, use, or internal state.
It arises where output is construed as something—within a semiotic organisation.The model participates in this processnot by meaning,but by constraining what can be meant.This is coupling without construal.
Now the architecture is complete:
- nothing inside the model carries meaning
- nothing in behaviour or structure produces it
- and yet meaning occurs in interaction
One final step remains.
To state, cleanly and without concession:
what survives of “AI understanding” once all equivocations are removed.
Final Post
“What Remains of AI ‘Understanding’ Under Constraint”
No comments:
Post a Comment