Abstract
The staggering pace with which the capabilities of large language models(LLMs) are increasing, as measured by a range of commonly used natural languageunderstanding (NLU) benchmarks, raises many questions regarding what"understanding" means for a language model and how it compares to humanunderstanding. This is especially true since many LLMs are exclusively trainedon text, casting doubt on whether their stellar benchmark performances arereflective of a true understanding of the problems represented by thesebenchmarks, or whether LLMs simply excel at uttering textual forms thatcorrelate with what someone who understands the problem would say. In thisphilosophically inspired work, we aim to create some separation between formand meaning, with a series of tests that leverage the idea that worldunderstanding should be consistent across presentational modes - inspired byFregean senses - of the same meaning. Specifically, we focus on consistencyacross languages as well as paraphrases. Taking GPT-3.5 as our object of study,we evaluate multisense consistency across five different languages and varioustasks. We start the evaluation in a controlled setting, asking the model forsimple facts, and then proceed with an evaluation on four popular NLUbenchmarks. We find that the model's multisense consistency is lacking and runseveral follow-up analyses to verify that this lack of consistency is due to asense-dependent task understanding. We conclude that, in this aspect, theunderstanding of LLMs is still quite far from being consistent and human-like,and deliberate on how this impacts their utility in the context of learningabout human language and understanding.