4 ms·
Chomsky is a fool and this article demonstrates it clearly. First we don't really know how the mind works and therefore we really have no idea if the language
by genman 4y ago
Chomsky is a fool and this article demonstrates it clearly.
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 doesn't have an idea how a child obtains a language. You really need a lot of data to acquire the 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 and yes, they make obvious grammar mistakes that demonstrates that they have not fully internalized it.
His claims are simply false, easily refuted by empirical data.
I would call it fallacy of English. English is stupid simple language. Most languages are not.
- emodendroket 4y agoI have to say I don't find "I have kids" a compelling dismissal of a lifetime of work, nor do I agree that English (or any other language people speak natively) could be described as "stupid simple" (and really, do you think Chomsky did not consider any other language before positing a universal grammar?).
- genman 4y agoIt is not my fault that he made his claims too easily refutable by claiming that "young child acquiring a language is developing speedily from minuscule data". I have a comparison between two languages that are both not simple as English and there has been clear correlation between the exposure time (the amount of data) and fluency and the difference between the exposure has not been minuscule. I have noticed the same by other similar children. I honestly don't know what he did or did not consider considering that he has made very bad judgement about two aggressor states: Serbia and Russia based on his anti-US stance. It clearly demonstrates that he is able to not think clearly.
- emodendroket 4y agoNobody says that exposure to the target language is irrelevant and Chomsky's political views are completely beside the point.
- genman 4y agoHe didn't claim that it is irrelevant, he said that it can be very small. This is clearly wrong based on empirical evidence that can be quantified based on hours of exposure to one or another language. It is enough to show a single counter example to his claim. Explaining away genocide is not a political view.
- hackandthink 4y agoAs far as I know: Chomsky did not support the Khmer Rouge - he questioned information about the Cambodian genocide. I read Henry Kissinger's China book. He seemed to be not purely happy about US Cambodia politics. (but reasons) "Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_s...