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

Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

chomsky.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 389 posts

Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

#131

Post by dghlsakjg »

blamestross wrote: post #38
dghlsakjg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is that computers, when used properly, can absolutely do math. And LLMs, when used properly, can absolutely explain the reasoning behind why a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers weigh the same.

Can they reason? Maybe, depending on your definition of reasoning.

An example: which weighs more a pound of bricks and 453.59 grams of feathers? Explain your reasoning.

LLM: The pound of bricks weighs slightly more.

*Reasoning:*

* *1 pound* is officially defined as *0.45359237 kilograms*, which is *453.59237 grams*. * You have *453.59 grams* of feathers.

So, the pound of bricks (453.59237 grams) weighs a tiny fraction more than the 453.59 grams of feathers. For most practical purposes, they'd be considered the same, but technically, the bricks are heavier by 0.00237 grams. /llm

It is both correct and the reasoning is sound. Do I understand that the machine is a pattern following machine, yes! Is there an argument to be made that humans are also that? Probably. Chomsky himself argued in favor of a universal grammar, after all.

I’m steel manning this a bit, but the point is that LLMs are capable of doing some things which are indistinguishable from human reasoning in terms of results. Does the process matter in all cases?

Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

#132

Post by rxtexit »

titzer wrote: post #46

All this interview proves is that Chomsky has fallen far, far behind how AI systems work today and is retreating to scoff at all the progress machine learning has achieved. Machine learning has given rise to AI now. It can't explain itself from principles or its architecture. But you couldn't explain your brain from principles or its architecture, you'd need all of neuroscience to do it. Because the brain is digital…

It really shouldn't be hard to understand that a titan of a field has forgot more than what an arm chair enthusiast knows.

I remember having thoughts like this until I listened to him talk on a podcast for 3 hours about chatGPT.

What was most obvious is Chomsky really knows linguistics and I don't.

"What Kind of Creatures Are We?" is good place to start.

We should take having Chomsky still around to comment on LLMs as one of the greatest intellectual gifts.

Much before listening to his thoughts on LLMs was me projecting my disdain for his politics.

Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

#133

Post by LudwigNagasena »

foobarqux wrote: post #128
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it polite to deprive readers of context necessary to understand what the speaker is talking about? I was also very confused by that part and I had no idea whom or what he was talking about or why he even started taking about that. I searched for an actual paper by that guy because you’ve mentioned his real name. I found “Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language”. After reading it seems even mor…

> After reading it seems even more true that Chomsky's Tom Jones is a strawman. Lol. It's clear you are not interested in having any kind of rational discussion on the topic and are driven by some kind of zealotry when you claim to have read a technical 40 page paper (with an additional 18 pages of citations) in 30 minutes. Even if by some miraculous feat you had read it you haven't made a single actual argument or a…

It’s certainly not a dense paper with careful nuanced derivations that you have to ponder to grasp. It’s a light read you can skim especially if you aren’t interested in LLM Trump improv and you are familiar with the general thought behind connectionism, construction grammar, other modern linguistic theories and, of course, universal grammar. The debate is as old as UG, but now with a new LLM flavor.

I don’t know which argument you expect from me. I read it and found nothing similar to “Stop wasting your time; naval vessels do it all the time.” So I concluded it’s a strawman. Being against a particular controversial approach in linguistics doesn’t mean being against science.

Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

#134

Post by cmiles74 »

Smaug123 wrote: post #77
newAccount2025 wrote: post #50

[flagged]

From some Googling and use of Claude (and from summaries of the suggestively titled "Impossible Languages" by Moro linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar ), it looks like he's referring to languages which violate the laws which constrain the languages humans are innately capable of learning. But it's very unclear why "machine M is capable of learning more complex languages than humans" implies an…

Firstly, can't speak for Chomsky.

In this article he is very focused on science and works hard to delineate science (research? deriving new facts?) from engineering (clearly product oriented). In his opinion ChatGPT falls on the engineering side of this line: it's a product of engineering, OpenAI is concentrating on marketing. For sure there was much science involved but the thing we have access to is a product.

IMHO Chomsky is asking: while ChatGPT is a fascinating product, what is it teaching us about language? How is it advancing our knowledge of language? I think Chomsky is saying "not much."

Someone else mentioned embeddings and the relationship between words that they reveal. Indeed, this could be a worthy area of further research. You'd think it would be a real boon when comparing languages. Unfortunately the interviewer didn't ask Chomsky about this.

Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

#135

Post by roughly »

submeta wrote: post #35

Chomsky’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?

> But what exactly is understanding?

He alludes to quite a bit here - impossible languages, intrinsic rules that don’t actually express in the language, etc - that leads me to believe there’s a pretty specific sense by which he means “understanding,” and I’d expect there’s a decent literature in linguistics covering what he’s referring to. If it’s a topic of interest to you, chasing down some of those leads might be a good start.

(I’ll note as several others have here too that most of his language seems to be using specific linguistics terms of art - “language” for “human language” is a big tell, as is the focus on understanding the mechanisms of language and how humans understand and generate languages - I’m not sure the critique here is specifically around LLMs, but more around their ability to teach us things about how humans understand language.)

Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

#136

Post by rxtexit »

lanfeust6 wrote: post #52

I'm noticing that leftists overwhelmingly toe the same line on AI skepticism, which suggests to me an ideological motivation.

Then you obviously didn't listen to a word Chomsky has said on the subject.

I was quite dismissive of him on LLMs until I realized the utter hubris and stupidity of dismissing Chomsky on language.

I think it was someone asking if he was familiar with the Wittgenstein Blue and Brown books and of course because he as already an assistant professor at MIT when they came out.

I still chuckle at my own intellectual arrogance and stupidity when thinking about how I was dismissive of Chomsky on language. I barely know anything and I was being dismissive of one of unquestionable titans and historic figures of a field.

Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

#138

Post by tpm »

lostmsu wrote: post #104
lucisferre wrote: post #86

"The desert ants in my backyard have minuscule brains, but far exceed human navigational capacities, in principle, not just performance. There is no Great Chain of Being with humans at the top." This quote brought to mind the very different technological development path of the spider species in Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Time. They used pheromones to 'program' a race of ants to do computation.

I don't know what he's talking about. Humans clearly outperform ants in navigation. Especially if you allow arbitrary markings on the terrain. Sounds like "ineffable nature" mumbo-jumbo.

Arbitrary markings on the terrain? Why not GPS, satellite photo etc? All of those are human inventions and we can navigate much better and in a broader set of environments than ants thanks to them.

Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

#139

Post by dinfinity »

submeta wrote: post #35

Chomsky’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?

> But what exactly is understanding?

I would say that it is to what extent your mental model of a certain system is able to make accurate predictions of that system's behavior.

Re: Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)

#140

Post by EasyMark »

lanfeust6 wrote: post #52

I'm noticing that leftists overwhelmingly toe the same line on AI skepticism, which suggests to me an ideological motivation.

I think viewing the world as either leftist or right wing is rather limiting philosophy and way to go through life. Most people are a lot more complicated than that.
Post reply on HN