What outcomes are you using to come to this conclusion? How about: " The world of text is a far more complete description of the *communicatable* human experience..."

Perhaps to AI training a picture is not worth a thousand words

Books lie, he said. God dont lie. No, said the judge. He does not. And these are his words. He held up a chunk of rock. He speaks in stones and trees, the bones of things.

"the world of text" is a "description of human experience"? Might need to turn off the gibberish filter on your AI tweet writing program.

Another angle is the opposite: We're all extremely text-soaked now, being online and all, and so we now understand the world textually more than any other way. Let me know when ChatGPT can successfully project the mind-experience of a Commanche Warriro of old.

Imagine a Matrix-level system that can do for the full range of human senses what GPT can do for text. That's what we'd need for a fair comparison. You win the bet if folks who use both systems say that GPT alone provides a near-complete description of the human experience. Game?

Yes, Language is a great descriptor of experience, emotion and even subconscious processes, even ordinary words like "Awesome", "Indescribable" that don't seem to communicate anything important in many contexts, let alone Freudian slips, communicate a lot about inner experience.

Great point, but it's just the tip of the iceberg that includes all of human audiovisual productions from the XXth and XXIth centuries. The first DL beast we feed with that will make history.