Last night:

[minimalparts@denotation.link]

Last night:

3.5-year-old Kiddo is visiting with her responsible adults -- let's call them Kim and Sandy. We are sitting at the dinner table and I am occupying the seat that Sandy was using the previous night. Kiddo points at the seat and says: "Not Sandy".

Perfect opportunity to test semantic abilities of Kiddo, including reference, inference and negation, plus the presence of a consistent belief system. I lie through my teeth:

Me: But I am Sandy!
Kid (laughing loudly): Nooooo!
Me: What do you mean? Sandy is wearing a blue jumper and I have a blue jumper on. That proves I am Sandy.
Kid: No, you're Aurelie.
Me: Why am I not Sandy?
Kid: Sandy long hair.

So Kiddo can name (Aurelie, Sandy). Kiddo can do complex inference: if X has Z and Y has Z, nothing follows, but if X has Z and Y does not have Z, then X cannot be Y (blue jumper vs. long hair). Kiddo can process sentential negation ("Why is X not Y"). Kiddo will refuse to do belief update when that update would send her belief system into an inconsistent state.

In contrast, I suppose this is what would have happened with a language model:

LM: I see that you are occupying Sandy's seat.
Me: Well, I am Sandy.
LM: Oh, I thought you were Aurelie.
Me: No, I am Sandy. Sandy is wearing a blue jumper and I have a blue jumper on.
LM: I am ever so sorry. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. You are of course Sandy.
Me: Why shouldn't I be Sandy?
LM: Sandy is wearing a blue jumper.

vs .
wins. Any time.