3 ms·
>Similar to the Chinese room argument, one can always claim the computer is just emulating understanding. And you'd be correct. The point isn't what kind of ou
by typon 4y ago
>Similar to the Chinese room argument, one can always claim the computer is just emulating understanding.
And you'd be correct. The point isn't what kind of output ChatGPT can produce, the point is what kind of input it takes to create the model.
If ChatGPT were to gain language understanding at the level of a toddler trained on the same number of tokens that a toddler needs, then you could start postulating that the model is really learning, rather than becoming a sophisticated stochastic parrot.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoI have a small kid now.. and this is exactly what they do: parrot. They parrot more as their source of parrot material expands. ChatGPT is an infant now. More parrot material can be provided.
- typon 4y agoMaybe research done by linguists and cognitive scientists over decades should be valued more than your observation?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoIt is a valid point. I am not an authority on linguistics and Chomsky absolutely is ( to the best of my knowledge his theories and contributions to linguistics were not disproved ). However, and this is part my original argument: he is not arguing linguistics. He is arguing intelligence. No. More than that. He is actually arguing an unintelligence, which is a new abstract concept and one that is not a colloquially used. I may be wrong, but if that is the case, and we are still arguing with appeal to authority, shouldn't he defer to experts in that field? Shouldn't AI experts opinion be valued more than his observation? Note, I am merely raising a possibility that he is wrong about this particular idea. More to the point, do you think his understanding of syntax really means he understands the underpinnings of AI; the same AI that merely tries to emulate human language capability?