Many commenters here seem to be hostile towards philosophy. Heres a take for you:
This is only a paradox if you think of language as a way of describing some "real", static state of affairs in the world (look up " correspondence theory of truth"). There is no paradox here if we think of language as pragmatic, action directing, since it is obvious what the sentence should convey (look up "pragmatism"). Some people will argue that there is some sort of static meaning hidden behind the actual words which enters the consciousness of the listener, others will say that the meaning is only generated by the person hearing the words.
This is as philosophical of a question as it gets, and has been debated even more heatedly ever since Wittgenstein.
If you do not see that debating these questions is relevant and interesting, but would rather reduce all of philosophy to that first obvious-seeming and thus "not a real problem" position, then I wish you a good time bathing in your ignorance.
However, if you comprehend that what we take for granted in every area and discipline can be subjected to reasonable reflection, then I welcome you to the dark side. Nothing is clear, no knowledge absolute - many engineers seem to forget this while over-indulging in an overly simplistic world view :)
I think it is okay to philosophise about situations and events that seem a bit paradoxal but the explanation is obvious. Even more, that is a core trait of philosophy.
There are many similar situations where what we hear, read or see is technically incorrect. Since the sender (or the activator of an agent) of the message in such case assumes the interpreter has enough common knowledge, it is a perfectly okay communication.
A video tape containing a recording: "your watching this means I'm dead."
A secretary of a company impersonating the company when sending a message to many recipients.
An actor speaking about his character, as if they are somebody they know very well.
Writing that an AI hallucinates.
My car informing me that one of the tyres is low on pressure, even though it does not know what a tyre is, let alone how to measure pressure.
> [...] My car informing me that one of the tyres is low on pressure [...]
Thank you for putting this in a larger philosophical prospective. For I have something on the next level, a car that tells me "a tire has low pressure", but does NOT tell me which tire it is. I did the best I could to understand why my beloved car would do this, but gave up and had to interpret it as a deliberately malicious act.
My suspicions were confirmed when 1 of 4 sensors (inside the tires) had failed, and the technician read the diagnostic and proceeded directly to the tire in question. I had been desperately holding on to the remote possibility that the car really didn't know which tire has low pressure or which sensor failed, but it told the technician but not me.
I am wondering if it would be best to give the car to the technician to ensure my personal safety. How would the next aspect of this dislike manifest? Most scenarios I can think of result in the car's own suicide, but perhaps it will run me over? Please help.
Weird that tires have pressure sensors. I really thought that the control unit's logic simply averages rpm values to identify low pressure tires. I'm glad my car informs me which tire it is convinced of to suffer from 'depression'. I already checked that it identified the correct one.
Two different design philosophies: indirect (not all wheels rotating at a expected speed for current steering), or direct (wireless sensor in the tire).
Lots of linguists only work on static structures, diagramming morphosyntax and semantics of a standalone utterance. All of the fuzzy social context stuff doesn't generally get broken down into a "mathematical" structure in the same way. The piece we're missing here is called "grounding", the mapping of words in the utterance to entities in the context. I think it gets largely ignored because of this study of static structures. I don't know of any generic parsing framework/theory/tool that comes with grounding out-of-the box. It's just not done. Please prove me wrong if you know of a tool that does this. Other keywords are "deictic" and "pragmatics". Generally you only start to worry about grounding when you're doing some kind of robotics or other human-computer interaction and you need a human's words to map to sensor data or something on the screen to understand what the intention is.
As a possible exception, anaphora/cataphora resolution is pretty well-studied and for example is supported in spaCy (https://spacy.io/universe/project/neuralcoref), but this is mapping one word in an utterance to another word in the utterance, rather than to an entity in the context.
This is only a paradox if you think of language as a way of describing some "real", static state of affairs in the world (look up " correspondence theory of truth"). There is no paradox here if we think of language as pragmatic, action directing, since it is obvious what the sentence should convey (look up "pragmatism"). Some people will argue that there is some sort of static meaning hidden behind the actual words which enters the consciousness of the listener, others will say that the meaning is only generated by the person hearing the words.
This is as philosophical of a question as it gets, and has been debated even more heatedly ever since Wittgenstein.
If you do not see that debating these questions is relevant and interesting, but would rather reduce all of philosophy to that first obvious-seeming and thus "not a real problem" position, then I wish you a good time bathing in your ignorance.
However, if you comprehend that what we take for granted in every area and discipline can be subjected to reasonable reflection, then I welcome you to the dark side. Nothing is clear, no knowledge absolute - many engineers seem to forget this while over-indulging in an overly simplistic world view :)