4 ms·
He 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:
by jmull 4y ago
He 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.