Live data from Hacker News

Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

scientificamerican.com

291–300 of 424 posts

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#291
One thing that always seemed important to these discussions is that the serial structure of language is probably not an optimization but just due to the reality that we can only handle uttering or hearing one sound at a time.

In my mind there should be some kind of parallel/hierarchical model that comes after language layers and then optionally can be converted back to a series of tokens. The middle layers are trained on world models such as from videos, intermediary layers on mapping, and other layers on text, including quite a lot of transcripts etc. to make sure the middle layers fully ground the outer layers.

I don't really understand transformers and diffusion transformers etc., but I am optimistic that as we increase the compute and memory capacity over the next few years it will allow more video data to be integrated with language data. That will result in fully grounded multimodal models that are even more robust and more general purpose.

I keep waiting to hear about some kind of manufacturing/design breakthroughs with memristors or some kind of memory-centric computing that gives another 100 X boost in model sizes and/or efficiency. Because it does seem that the major functionality gains have been unlocked through scaling hardware which allowed the development of models that took advantage of the new scale. For me large multimodal video datasets with transcripts and more efficient hardware to compress and host them are going to make AI more robust.

I do wish I understood transformers better though because it seems like somehow they are more general-purpose. Is there something about them that is not dependant on the serialization or tokenization that can be extracted to make other types of models more general? Maybe they are tokens that have scalars attached which are still fully contextualized but are computed as many parallel groups for each step.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#292

The conclusion implied by the title seems self evident for anyone who has seen any (at least) nonhuman mammalian predator.

Whether in the predator or in the prey, the reward system of getting food and surviving through evolution in geological time would strengthen effective thinking.

Then comes the need to transmit/transfer understanding.

From the fine article:

> various properties that human languages have—there are about 7,000 of them spoken and signed across the world—are optimized for efficiently transmitting information, making things easy to perceive, easy to understand, easy to produce and easy to learn for kids.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#293
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll pop in with a friendly “that research is definitely wrong”. If they want to prove that LLMs can’t reason, shouldn’t they stringently define that word somewhere in their paper? As it stands, they’re proving something small (some of today’s LLMs have XYZ weaknesses) and claiming something big (humans have an ineffable calculator-soul). LLMs absolutely 100% can reason, if we take the dictionary definition; it’s tri…

Can they reason, or is the volume of training data sufficient for them to match relationships up to appropriate expressions? Basically, if humans have had meaningful discussions about it, the product of their reasoning is there for the LLM, right? Seems to me, the "how many R's are there in the word "strawberry" problem is very suggestive of the idea LLM systems cannot reason. If they could, the question is not diffi…

The “how many R’s are in the word strawberry?” problem can’t be solved by LLMs specifically because they do not have access to the text directly. Before the model sees the user input it’s been tokenized by a preprocessing step. So instead of the string “strawberry”, the model just sees an integer token the word has been mapped to.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Language's purpose is thought Language's purpose - why it arose - is more likely communication, primarily external communication. The benefit of using language to communicate with yourself via "inner voice" - think in terms of words - seems a secondary benefit, especially considering that less than 50% of people report doing this. But certainly language, especially when using a large vocabulary of abstract and spec…

Whether language's purpose was communication or thought is not easily answered. For one, how would you know? It left no fossils, nor do we have any other kind of record from that time. For another, the very question implies a teleological view of evolution, which is arguably wrong. As for what 50% of people report (where did that number come from?), we have virtually zero intuitive insight into the inner workings of…

You can look at modern animals: they use language for communication.

If people had no idea if they think with words or not, presumably they would say so.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a brilliant genius according to IQ tests. Think me arrogant or conceited or whatever - that is literally the truth, fact - proven many times in the educational system (I was homeschooled and didn't follow any sort of curriculum and was allowed to do whatever I wanted bc I kept testing higher than almost everyone) and just for kicks also - the last time I took an IQ test I was in my late 20s and a friend and I had…

Meta: I have noticed many comments written in this style lately. Long-winded with out-of-place internet shorthand. It is as if someone is deliberately trying to sound youthful while not really knowing how. It is the "how do you do, fellow kids" of writing styles. I am not sure what sort of LLM-powered bot is behind them, or whether it's one person with some sort of schizophrenia, but once you notice it you will see a…

I have noticed the style, hadn't thought to attribute it to "sounding youthful". To me it just sounds genuinely from a younger person.

Fixations around "intelligence"/IQ is huge these days, I have found, among young men, not just because of the AI stuff.

And humans in general can still, for now, write and be passionate and maybe have some misplaced enthusiasm on internet forums!

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#296
post #163
post #101

When I was 13 or so, a friend asked me, "So, you speak three languages. Which one do you think in?" and the question left me speechless, because until that moment I hadn't considered that people think in words. It seemed a very inefficient way to go about things! Much later, I did begin to think mostly in words, and (perhaps for unrelated reasons?) my thinking became much less efficient. Also related, I experienced t…

With the drugs were you able to be more efficient for example code quicker, or was it more like better insights. Or perhaps both?

It might be that my working memory was temporarily expanded. Research has found its possible to massively increase it by disabling parts of the brain with electronmagnets.

What it seemed like subjectively though is that my thoughts themselves became "longer", imagine planks of wood. You can stack them (slightly offset, like a video timeline with layers), and the wider they are, the more ideas you can stack before it topples over.

I have unfortunately been unable to replicate the experience. There were after-effects for a few weeks where my senses and cognition were markedly enhanced, but this faded after a few weeks.

My main take-away here is "why are we trying to make machines smarter than humans, we should try to make humans smarter"! (I guess Neuralink kinda does that, but it doesn't actually make the human part smarter...)

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#297
post #48

This is an important result. The actual paper [1] says that functional MRI (which is measuring which parts of the brain are active by sensing blood flow) indicates that different brain hardware is used for non-language and language functions. This has been suspected for years, but now there's an experimental result. What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs. It's not clear what that someth…

When you look at how humans play chess they employ several different cognitive strategies. Memorization, calculation, strategic thinking, heuristics, and learned experience. When the first chess engines came out they only employed one of these: calculation. It wasn't until relatively recently that we had computer programs that could perform all of them. But it turns out that if you scale that up with enough compute y…

Chess is essentially a puzzle. There's a single explicit, quantifiable goal, and a solution either achieves the goal or it doesn't.

Solving puzzles is a specific cognitive task, not a general one.

Language is a continuum, not a puzzle. The problem with LLMs is that testing has been reduced to performance on language puzzles, mostly with hard edges - like bar exams, or letter counting - and they're a small subset of general language use.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#298
post #34

As always, barely anyone reads the actual claims in the article and we're left with people opining on the title. The claims here are exceptionally limited. You don't need spoken language to do well on cognitive tests, but that has never been a subject of debate. Obviously the deaf get on fine without spoken language. People suffering from aphasia, but still capable of communication via other mechanisms, still do well…

This. Also the question is what the possible complexity of the question is that you want to convey. As long as it is rather simple it might seem realistic to argue that there is no language involved (i would argue this is wrong). But as soon as the problems get more complex, the system you need to use to communicate this question becomes more and more undeniably a form of language (i think about complexity here as th…

You mean communication should happen through language?

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#299
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As some who has a dis-harmonic intelligence profile, this has been obvious for a very long time. In the family of my mother there are several individuals struggling with language while excelling in the field of exact sciences. I very strongly suspect that my non-verbal (performal) IQ is much higher (around 130) than my verbal IQ (around 100) I used to rationalize to myself along similar lines for a long time, then…

I'm a brilliant genius according to IQ tests. Think me arrogant or conceited or whatever - that is literally the truth, fact - proven many times in the educational system (I was homeschooled and didn't follow any sort of curriculum and was allowed to do whatever I wanted bc I kept testing higher than almost everyone) and just for kicks also - the last time I took an IQ test I was in my late 20s and a friend and I had…

I think you just need to go further in your thought process here: if you recognize that your amazing IQ scores have only very local relevance, that they don't capture everything, why feel the need to have any investment in them at all? Would it be too much of a conspiracy to you if I told you that IQ is rather a lot of BS?

If the category you are working with is the kind of thing that you have to construct such nuance, and circles, and "yes but also..."s around, perhaps you might question your category outright?

Just to say, have you ever maybe thought that what we call "intelligence" is somewhat determined more by time and place than it is by our collective answers to multiple choice questions? Just maybe something to think about.

Post reply on HN