3 ms·
Right... but do you? Or is this all just a game of syntax that _feels_ like semantics from the inside?
by aftbit 4y ago
Right... but do you? Or is this all just a game of syntax that _feels_ like semantics from the inside?
- danbruc 4y agoCould be. Does not even have to feel like anything, this could be a independent additional component. This goes into the direction of the Chinese room, how do you figure out if someone understands something? I would say you ask questions and judge by the answers.
- mcguire 4y agoIf the answers include hallucinations of basic facts, there is likely something seriously wrong with the Chinese room's thinking somewhere.
- eternalban 4y agoTwo questions that I keep asking myself: - What distinguishes thinking and computing? - What is more fundamental? Form or meaning? > is this all just a game of syntax that _feels_ like semantics from the inside? The point is that in case of LLMs, there is no mystery here: it is syntactic templates (x) statistics. But do we know that 'syntax' is all there is to our mental reasoning? We don't know this (yet). I have flirted with the notion - heretical for me since I 'believe' in primacy of meaning, not form - and can kinda squint and see meaning possibly being a 'virtual' phenomena and possibly simply a 'narrative' of 'arcs' connecting 'facts' mapped to a syntactic template. That meaning is simply a process. [So, not even "42" ..]