Unfortunately, that’s become a rather loaded question.
Dan Milway

The core semantics of ‘UG’ should be ‘innate mechanism that does unlearnable computations that permit language’. No other meaning makes any sense. It is not merely an assertion that language is unique to humans. It is not a claim that language can be studied. It is a piece of philosophy that fits into assumptions of a Poverty of the Stimulus and unbounded nesting of scopes in human language. I cannot comprehend how this is debatable, but like every single term within ling, it has become utterly meaningless due to everyone making up their own random meaning for it and having no sense of rigor or history of the field. Gold’s proof is about UG. Gold’s proof is about infinite nesting and Poverty of Stimulus. Gold’s proof is a piece of math that treats UG rigorously, and uses the definition I gave. Gold’s proof shows that UG is magic. If you want another meaning for UG, you need to be able to justify why Gold’s proof no longer applies simply on your authority. And, as always, if you mean something else when you say ‘UG’, why don’t you just use a different word?

Unless using that word is exclusively about signaling your politics while hiding your beliefs. But then… why call yourself a ‘scientist’? That makes you a cult member.