# Which symbol grounding problem should we try to solve?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21080 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21080/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 2 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Is there a future for AI without representation?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18955/) (2025)
- [Symbol grounding in computational systems: A paradox of intentions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00002/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Floridi and Taddeo propose a condition of "zero semantic commitment" for solutions to the grounding problem, and a solution to it. I argue briefly that their condition cannot be fulfilled, not even by their own solution. After a look at Luc Steels' very different competing suggestion, I suggest that we need to re-think what the problem is and what role the 'goals' in a system play in formulating the problem. On the basis of a proper understanding of computing, I come to the conclusion that the only sensible grounding problem is how we can explain and re-produce the behavioral ability and function of meaning in artificial computational agents