{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025034770514603615, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.76, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Which symbol grounding problem should we try to solve?

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 Steel's 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 (syntactic) understanding of computing, I come to the conclusion that the only sensible grounding problem is how we can explain and re-produce the behavioural ability and function of meaning in artificial computational agents.