(2023)
From what I've heard, Chomsky had a stroke which impacted his language. You will, unfortunately, not hear a recent opinion from him on current developments.
Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)
31–40 of 389 posts
Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)
#32Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)
#33Chomsky is always saying that LLMs and such can only imitate, not understand language. But I wonder if there is a degree of sophistication at which he would concede these machines exceed "imitation". If his point is that LLMs arrive at language in a way different than humans... great. But I'm not sure how he can argue that some kind of extremely sophisticated understanding of natural language is not embedded in these…
From what I've read/watched of Chomsky he's holding out for something that truly cannot be distinguished from human no matter how hard you tried.
Isn’t that just a Turing test?
I’m perfectly willing to bet that there are LLMs that can pass a Turing test, even against a mind like Chomsky.
Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)
#34I recently saw a new LLM that was fooled by "20 pounds of bricks vs 20 feathers". These are not reasoning machines.
20 feathers?
Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)
#35Chomsky’s notion is: LLMs can only imitate, not understand language. But what exactly is understanding? What if our „understanding“ is just unlocking another level in a model? Unlocking a new form of generation?
Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)
#36Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)
#37Chomsky’s notion is: LLMs can only imitate, not understand language. But what exactly is understanding? What if our „understanding“ is just unlocking another level in a model? Unlocking a new form of generation?
Understanding is probably not much more than making abstractions into simpler terms until you are left with something one can relate to by intuition or social consensus.
Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)
#38I recently saw a new LLM that was fooled by "20 pounds of bricks vs 20 feathers". These are not reasoning machines.
I recently had a computer tell me that 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3. It must not be a math capable machine. Perhaps it is more important to know the limitations of tools rather than dismiss their utility entirely due to the existence of limitations.
A computer isn't a math capable machine.
> Perhaps it is more important to know the limitations of tools rather than dismiss their utility entirely due to the existence of limitations.
Well, yes. And "reasoning" is only something LLMs do coincidentally, to their function as sequence continuation engines. Like performing accurate math on rationale numbers, it can happen if you put in a lot of work and accept a LOT of expensive computation. Even then there exists computations that just are not reasonable or feasible.
Reminding folks to dismiss the massive propaganda engine pushing this bubble isn't "dismissing their utility entirely".
These are not reasoning machines. Treating them like they are will get you hurt eventually.
Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)
#39Chomsky is always saying that LLMs and such can only imitate, not understand language. But I wonder if there is a degree of sophistication at which he would concede these machines exceed "imitation". If his point is that LLMs arrive at language in a way different than humans... great. But I'm not sure how he can argue that some kind of extremely sophisticated understanding of natural language is not embedded in these…
It's always good to humble the ivory tower.