3 ms·
I think people, Chomsky included, are really missing the point or else find a way to place themselves in the milieau of oppositional thinkers to attract fame an
by emptysongglass 4y ago
I think people, Chomsky included, are really missing the point or else find a way to place themselves in the milieau of oppositional thinkers to attract fame and credibility. Chomsky, by the way, is also a notorious supporter of "Russia's interests" in its criminal prosecution of its invasion into Ukraine. So those lauding his intelligence and wisdom should already have serious reservations before diving in. But let's just get right to it.
People who rely on LLMs to do their work in domains they understand find them useful in the sense of hefting another useful tool as humans have done throughout their existence. That's it. Among serious users of LLMs as a productive tool there's no wistful wonder that they may be speaking to a truly understanding intelligence. So Chomsky and the rest of the critics don't really have a foot to stand on when they say things like
> It is at once comic and tragic, as Borges might have noted, that so much money and attention should be concentrated on so little a thing — something so trivial when contrasted with the human mind, which by dint of language, in the words of Wilhelm von Humboldt, can make “infinite use of finite means”, creating ideas and theories with universal reach.
Why is it comic and tragic? LLMs are genuinely useful tools and one of my biggest productivity boosters at work since I learned how to make a computer do my bidding. Of course huge amounts of money are being poured in when it's so helpful across a number of domains for getting work done.
Really, folks, there's nothing to see here. Make use of these marvelous tools and continue doing what humans have done best, a truly innate human inheritance, to use tools to support our goals.
- jmull 4y agoHe directly acknowledges the utility of these models and seems to be trying to make a different, much wider point. From the paragraph above the one you quoted: > However useful these programs may be in some narrow domains (they can be helpful in computer programming, for example, or in suggesting rhymes for light verse), we know from the science of linguistics and the philosophy of knowledge that they differ profoundly from how humans reason and use language. I think you and he agree on your main point, but his main point is about something else.
- emptysongglass 4y agoI declare his wider point isn't very useful to the discourse at large. Most everyone acknowledges and agrees on the fact that LLMs are stochastic parrots. That doesn't diminish their utility. Chomsky is trying to make himself sound sagacious in a sea of hype but he isn't adding anything new to the conversation and even the title, "The False Promise of ChatGPT" (emphasis mine) attacks a contingent of believers that simply don't exist or are a minority. ChatGPT isn't promising to be anything other than useful. It fulfills that promise.
- masswerk 4y agoI think, Chomsky's point is that certainty and negativity are two related concepts presupposing each other, forming the very basis of conceptuality as we know it (or, maybe better: how it is relevant for us). Stochastic probability is neither of this, nor does it promise to lead towards this.
- nraklr 4y ago[flagged]
- naasking 4y ago> Chomsky, by the way, is also a notorious supporter of "Russia's interests" in its criminal prosecution of its invasion into Ukraine. Not that this is really relevant to this topic, but that's simply not true. He doesn't support Russia's interests, he's simply acknowledging that when dealing with powerful nations, we have to consider their interests and reach compromises where their interests conflict with ours in order to avoid the horrors of war. You know, diplomacy 101.
- jnsaff2 4y agoChomsky has an ideological hatred of his version of Anglo-imperialism and throws everything else under the bus in the name of that. Has been doing that for decades. He is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. This makes his thoughts on other topics suspect as well. Moreover how do you do diplomacy with Hitler2.0? Thinking that giving up yet another piece of (for you) unknown land to one of those will bring peace makes you sound really naive.
- naasking 4y ago> Moreover how do you do diplomacy with Hitler2.0? Speaking of intellectual dishonesty making other thoughts suspect...