Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

research.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#81

Post by vkazanov »

canjobear wrote: post #74
vkazanov wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Languages definitely follow grammars But it's the other way around! Grammars follow languages. Or, more precisely, grammars are (very lossy) language models. They describe typical expectations of an average language speaker. Grammars try to provide a generalized system describing an average case. I prefer to think of languages as a set of typical idioms used by most language users. A given grammar is an attempt to…

This is a terminological difference. Linguists use "grammar" as a technical term for a speaker's implicit knowledge of how their language works. That knowledge could be statistical or rule-based in nature, although most linguistic theories say that it's rule-based. You're using grammars to mean human-produced descriptions of that knowledge.

That's correct.

Grammars the way I understand them are are a family of human language models. Typically discrete in nature. The approach was born out of Chomsky's research culminating in the Universal Grammar idea.

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#82

Post by foobarqux »

vkazanov wrote: post #79
foobarqux wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just wrong. Languages follow certain inviolable rules, most notably, hierarchical structure dependence. There are experiments (Moro, the subject "Chris") that show that humans don't process synthetic languages that violate these rules the same as synthetic languages that do (specifically it takes them longer to process and they use non-language parts of the brain to do so).

What exactly is wrong? The fact that grammars are very limited models of human languages? My key thesis is that human languages operate in a way that non-probabilistic models (i.e. grammars) can only describe it in a very lossy way. Sure, LLMs are also lossy but also much more scalable. I've spent quite a lot of time with 90s/2000s papers on the topic, and I don't remember any model useful in generating human languag…

As I said there are universal rules that human language processing follows (like hierarchical structure dependence); you can't have arbitrary syntax/grammars. It's true that science hasn't solved the main puzzles about how to characterize these rules.

The fact that statistical models are better predictors than the-"true"-characterization-that-we-haven't-figured-out-yet is completely irrelevant, just as it would be irrelevant if your deep-learning net was a better predictor of the weather: it wouldn't imply that the weather doesn't follow rules in physics, regardless of whether we knew what those rules were.

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#83

Post by foobarqux »

famouswaffles wrote: post #69
wruza wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How human brains process thoughts is non-uniform across population. There’s imagery, written language, sound, speech, tactile, etc. Not everything that you think about is readily expressible in your language. There are definitely people with and without “internal screen”, and probably few more types with/without X, where X is a set of things we’ve never talked about, either assuming everyone has it or not realizing t…

That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how does the brain look when you do both ? Is there a clear difference ? There's no 'thinking mode' followed by a 'language processing mode'. Language processing is thinking as far the brain is concerned and there's no evidence that these are 2 cleanly separated processes whether you 'think' in words or not.

That's not true, the Moro experiments show they use different capacities as do similar experiments on people who have certain severe cognitive deficiencies that don't impact language processing (e.g. the subject "Chris")

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#84

Post by famouswaffles »

foobarqux wrote: post #83
famouswaffles wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how does the brain look when you do both ? Is there a clear difference ? There's no 'thinking mode' followed by a 'language processing mode'. Language processing is thinking as far the brain is concerned and there's no evidence that these are 2 cleanly separated processes whether you 'think' in words or not.

That's not true, the Moro experiments show they use different capacities as do similar experiments on people who have certain severe cognitive deficiencies that don't impact language processing (e.g. the subject "Chris")

My argument is that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined.

Language is a lot more than parsing syntax, whatever your thoughts are on the matter, even LLMs are clearly doing more than that. Are there any experiments where subjects had severe cognitive deficiencies and language in its full breadth or maybe i should say communication ? came out unscathed ?

The chris experiments don't seem to go into much detail in that front.

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#85

Post by judahmeek »

foobarqux wrote: post #82
vkazanov wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is wrong? The fact that grammars are very limited models of human languages? My key thesis is that human languages operate in a way that non-probabilistic models (i.e. grammars) can only describe it in a very lossy way. Sure, LLMs are also lossy but also much more scalable. I've spent quite a lot of time with 90s/2000s papers on the topic, and I don't remember any model useful in generating human languag…

As I said there are universal rules that human language processing follows (like hierarchical structure dependence); you can't have arbitrary syntax/grammars. It's true that science hasn't solved the main puzzles about how to characterize these rules. The fact that statistical models are better predictors than the-"true"-characterization-that-we-haven't-figured-out-yet is completely irrelevant, just as it would be ir…

> As I said there are universal rules that human language processing follows (like hierarchical structure dependence); you can't have arbitrary syntax/grammars.

GP didn't say anything about grammars being arbitrary. In fact, his claim that grammars are models of languages would mean the complete opposite.

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#86

Post by judahmeek »

foobarqux wrote: post #76
vkazanov wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Languages definitely follow grammars But it's the other way around! Grammars follow languages. Or, more precisely, grammars are (very lossy) language models. They describe typical expectations of an average language speaker. Grammars try to provide a generalized system describing an average case. I prefer to think of languages as a set of typical idioms used by most language users. A given grammar is an attempt to…

This is just wrong. Languages follow certain inviolable rules, most notably, hierarchical structure dependence. There are experiments (Moro, the subject "Chris") that show that humans don't process synthetic languages that violate these rules the same as synthetic languages that do (specifically it takes them longer to process and they use non-language parts of the brain to do so).

Moro is apparently a reference to Andrea Moro, but I can't find any writing of his titled 'The Subject "Chris"'.

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#87

Post by foobarqux »

famouswaffles wrote: post #84
foobarqux wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true, the Moro experiments show they use different capacities as do similar experiments on people who have certain severe cognitive deficiencies that don't impact language processing (e.g. the subject "Chris")

My argument is that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. Language is a lot more than parsing syntax, whatever your thoughts are on the matter, even LLMs are clearly doing more than that. Are there any experiments where subjects had severe cognitive deficiencies and language in its full breadth or maybe i should say communication ?…

I just gave one: "Chris". Here's Chomsky describing the "Chris"-experiments ([1]) as part of a broader answer about how language is distinct from general cognition which I paraphrased above.

> That doesn't contradict the argument that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined.

It's not an argument, it's an assertion, that is, in fact, contradicted by the experimental evidence I described (Moro and "Chris"). Of course they are "deeply intertwined" but because of the evidence it's probably an interface between two distinctive systems rather than one general system doing two tasks.

https://youtu.be/Rgd8BnZ2-iw?si=_UdBfG1InmpjbDPB&t=6735

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#88

Post by foobarqux »

judahmeek wrote: post #86
foobarqux wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just wrong. Languages follow certain inviolable rules, most notably, hierarchical structure dependence. There are experiments (Moro, the subject "Chris") that show that humans don't process synthetic languages that violate these rules the same as synthetic languages that do (specifically it takes them longer to process and they use non-language parts of the brain to do so).

Moro is apparently a reference to Andrea Moro, but I can't find any writing of his titled 'The Subject "Chris"'.

It's a separate study done by someone else:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgd8BnZ2-iw&t=6735s

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#89

Post by famouswaffles »

foobarqux wrote: post #76
vkazanov wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Languages definitely follow grammars But it's the other way around! Grammars follow languages. Or, more precisely, grammars are (very lossy) language models. They describe typical expectations of an average language speaker. Grammars try to provide a generalized system describing an average case. I prefer to think of languages as a set of typical idioms used by most language users. A given grammar is an attempt to…

This is just wrong. Languages follow certain inviolable rules, most notably, hierarchical structure dependence. There are experiments (Moro, the subject "Chris") that show that humans don't process synthetic languages that violate these rules the same as synthetic languages that do (specifically it takes them longer to process and they use non-language parts of the brain to do so).

This does not mean that language in humans isn't probabilistic in nature. You seem to think that because there is structure then it must be rule based but that doesn't follow at all.

When a group of birds fly, each bird discovers/knows that flying just a little behind another will reduce the amount of flaps it needs to fly. When you have nearly every bird doing this, the flock form an interesting shape.

'Birds fly in a V shape' is essentially what grammar is here - a useful fiction of the underlying reality. There is structure. There is meaning but there is no rule the birds are following to get there. No invisible V shape in the sky constraining bird flight.

Re: Deciphering language processing in the human brain through LLM representations

#90

Post by famouswaffles »

foobarqux wrote: post #87
famouswaffles wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument is that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. Language is a lot more than parsing syntax, whatever your thoughts are on the matter, even LLMs are clearly doing more than that. Are there any experiments where subjects had severe cognitive deficiencies and language in its full breadth or maybe i should say communication ?…

I just gave one: "Chris". Here's Chomsky describing the "Chris"-experiments ([1]) as part of a broader answer about how language is distinct from general cognition which I paraphrased above. > That doesn't contradict the argument that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. It's not an argument, it's an assertion, that is, in fact, co…

Like i said, these experiments stop at a vague 'Chris can still learn languages'. No comment on actual proficiency or testing. For all i know i can't have a meaningful conversation with this guy beyond syntactically correct speech. Or maybe the best proficiency he's ever managed is still pretty poor compared to the average human. I have no idea.

There's no contradiction because i never argued/asserted the brain didn't have parts tuned for language, which is really all this experiment demonstrates.

Post reply on HN