3 ms·

ha ha ... every human is a fool in that case (as every human holds some unreasonable believes and opinions some point in time). "He has discredited his mind?"

ha ha ... every human is a fool in that case (as every human holds some unreasonable believes and opinions some point in time). "He has discredited his mind?" This sentence does not make sense to me. Explain what you mean by this statement. I found his NYT piece well argued. How can you fix any language model similar to ChatGPT to prevent the mistakes shown in the article? (I don't think you can).

genman 4y ago
He makes irrelevant and baseless claims. First we don't really know how the mind works and therefore we really have no idea if the language models are path toward AGI or not. He really doesn't have an idea how a child obtains a language. You really need a lot of data to acquire grammar, no minuscule data is not enough. I have observed it personally with my multilingual children, their mother tongue, to what they have the least exposure and what is the most complex, is not still not fluent for them. His claims are simply false, easily refuted by empirical data.
- kgarten 4y ago
  ok, you didn't answer my first questions. I try a couple of more. your first argument is useless, as anything might be a path to AGI ... first order logic / expert systems are ... regarding empirical data, you are bringing up anecdotes that don't hold up. Humans can often learn a concept from 1-2 instances (take the face of Albert Einstein) (even your kids can do that in grammar :) , maybe check how language models are trained in comparison. do you have any references for your claims? How much data does a human need to learn grammar? do you have any estimate? you say you can refute Chomsky's claims by empirical data. please show me that data/studies, don't talk about anecdotes from your kids.
  - genman 4y ago
    No, I don't have hard data, but so does Chomsky.
    - kgarten 4y ago
      lol .. then don't claim you have: "His claims are simply false, easily refuted by empirical data." he underlines his claims with examples showing what he means. I recommend you to read the original article by Chomsky, as you seem to have a problem understanding his arguments.

genman 4y ago

He makes irrelevant and baseless claims. First we don't really know how the mind works and therefore we really have no idea if the language models are path toward AGI or not. He really doesn't have an idea how a child obtains a language. You really need a lot of data to acquire grammar, no minuscule data is not enough. I have observed it personally with my multilingual children, their mother tongue, to what they have the least exposure and what is the most complex, is not still not fluent for them. His claims are simply false, easily refuted by empirical data.

kgarten 4y ago
ok, you didn't answer my first questions. I try a couple of more. your first argument is useless, as anything might be a path to AGI ... first order logic / expert systems are ... regarding empirical data, you are bringing up anecdotes that don't hold up. Humans can often learn a concept from 1-2 instances (take the face of Albert Einstein) (even your kids can do that in grammar :) , maybe check how language models are trained in comparison. do you have any references for your claims? How much data does a human need to learn grammar? do you have any estimate? you say you can refute Chomsky's claims by empirical data. please show me that data/studies, don't talk about anecdotes from your kids.
- genman 4y ago
  No, I don't have hard data, but so does Chomsky.
  - kgarten 4y ago
    lol .. then don't claim you have: "His claims are simply false, easily refuted by empirical data." he underlines his claims with examples showing what he means. I recommend you to read the original article by Chomsky, as you seem to have a problem understanding his arguments.