For a definition of "understands" that resists rigor and repeatability, sure. This is what I meant by reducing it to a semantic argument. You're just saying that AI is impossible. That doesn't constitute evidence for your position. Your opponents in the argument who feel AGI is imminent are likewise just handwaving.
To wit: none of you people have any idea what you're talking about. No one does. So take off the high hat and stop pretending you do.