6 ms·

Has Chomsky been right about anything?

Izkata 4y ago
My first introduction to him was when one uncontacted tribe or anothers' language refuted something he thought was fundamental to humans. In the decade(s) since I kinda think "Chomsky was wrong" is pretty much the only reason people bring him up.
- Calavar 4y ago
  I see a lot of irony in this. When Chomsky proposed generative grammars, his theory of universal language acquisition, and so on, they were radical ideas that upturned the central cannon of linguistics. Time has been on his side - entire schools and subfields of linguistics went extinct as more evidence emerged that Chomsky was fundamentally right. Basically every computer language and data format in existence is parsed/lexed in ways inspired by his models of language. But now Chomsky is considered the stodgy old establishment, and whenever one of his theories is contradicted somewhere on the margins people shout "Aha! He was wrong the whole time!" and ignore the 99% of cases where his models are still the best ones we have.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    What's even more bizarre is the ChatGPT is proving him right, that a neural net can build logical grammar, and he is denying it!
    - selestify 4y ago
      What did he say about logical grammars and neural nets in the past? Sorry, not very familiar with him.
      - bbor 4y ago
        He wrote an op ed recently with the oft-repeated argument that stochastic models are fundamentally distinct from structured symbolic/logical models. In simple terms you can never really “trust” chatgpt’s answers because it’s just guessing the answer that looks right, not applying structured reasoning like humans do. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chat... But might be missing something more specific, would love to read that.
        Izkata 4y ago
        > In simple terms you can never really “trust” chatgpt’s answers because it’s just guessing the answer that looks right, not applying structured reasoning like humans do. Here's an argument otherwise, that they really are developing some sort of model: https://the-decoder.com/stochastic-parrot-or-world-model-how-large-language-models-learn/ https://the-decoder.com/stochastic-parrot-or-world-model-how...
    - bbor 4y ago
      This is a hot take, would love a link/explanation on why you think neural nets are human-like. For example, from the op Ed you’re likely referencing: “ Their deepest flaw is the absence of the most critical capacity of any intelligence: to say not only what is the case, what was the case and what will be the case — that’s description and prediction — but also what is not the case and what could and could not be the case. Those are the ingredients of explanation, the mark of true intelligence.” Isn’t that just plainly true of LLMs? Sure they can produce text that looks like an explanation, and sure putting in a header telling it to spell out its reasoning will get it to output text that looks like reasoning, but I feel the nature of its hallucinations make it clear that it’s not actually performing those steps anywhere in the net. But maybe I’m just a Luddite? These technologies are amazing and transformative, I’m just shocked to see hate on HN of CHOMSKY of all people, the father of modern linguistics and cognitive science…
      - ogogmad 4y ago
        Why do you think this is impossible? Have you tried making an account on chat.openai.com? Because it can in fact do that right now; and even people who are otherwise skeptical of LLMs have panned Chomsky's article.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  That example was highly controversial, and I think Chomsky was actually right in that instance (all languages have recursion). Generally my understanding is that he's considered to have held the field of linguistics back quite a bit with a non-disprovable hypothesis.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Given how emphatic he is about everything, the answer is clearly no.
HyperSane 4y ago
About foreign policy? No.
- bandofthehawk 4y ago
  Was he wrong to oppose the Vietnam war?
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    He supported the communist though. He also supported Pol Pot. You can predict his opinions of foreign policy if you understand that he bases them on the "US is evil" axiom and therefore anyone who opposes it is good, no matter how actually evil they may be.
    - fulafel 4y ago
      The Pol Pot thing seems debunked: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-tr... The communism support doesn't seem to quite stick either if WP is to be believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_socialism_and_communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Ch... In Britannica and WP he's labeled an anarcho-syndicalist, so seems to be against both capitalism and noncapitalist authoritarian systems.
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        Chomsky absolutely was a Cambodian Genocide denailist at the time. He very arrogantly dismissed actual eyewitness testimony of the genocide from refugees purely for ideological reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
        fulafel 4y ago
        (Disclaimer: i'm just reading up about this now) Did you skip my first link or are you disagreeing with it? It's about the same subject. And in your WP link has a second quote writing about the genocide as fact. Another I think credible seeming article about it that seems to judge against denialism in an academic journal called "Genocide Studies and Prevention": https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1738&context=gsp https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... Chomsky's skepticism in the media criticism article talking (among other things) about a book about the then-contemporary events of course looks quite unfortunate in retrospect, but given the volume of work and constant writing about world events over a long career it seems to be a error in judgement in the moment, rather than denying history, especially as he evidently updated his views later as more evidence came about.

My first introduction to him was when one uncontacted tribe or anothers' language refuted something he thought was fundamental to humans. In the decade(s) since I kinda think "Chomsky was wrong" is pretty much the only reason people bring him up.

Calavar 4y ago
I see a lot of irony in this. When Chomsky proposed generative grammars, his theory of universal language acquisition, and so on, they were radical ideas that upturned the central cannon of linguistics. Time has been on his side - entire schools and subfields of linguistics went extinct as more evidence emerged that Chomsky was fundamentally right. Basically every computer language and data format in existence is parsed/lexed in ways inspired by his models of language. But now Chomsky is considered the stodgy old establishment, and whenever one of his theories is contradicted somewhere on the margins people shout "Aha! He was wrong the whole time!" and ignore the 99% of cases where his models are still the best ones we have.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  What's even more bizarre is the ChatGPT is proving him right, that a neural net can build logical grammar, and he is denying it!
  - selestify 4y ago
    What did he say about logical grammars and neural nets in the past? Sorry, not very familiar with him.
    - bbor 4y ago
      He wrote an op ed recently with the oft-repeated argument that stochastic models are fundamentally distinct from structured symbolic/logical models. In simple terms you can never really “trust” chatgpt’s answers because it’s just guessing the answer that looks right, not applying structured reasoning like humans do. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chat... But might be missing something more specific, would love to read that.
      - Izkata 4y ago
        > In simple terms you can never really “trust” chatgpt’s answers because it’s just guessing the answer that looks right, not applying structured reasoning like humans do. Here's an argument otherwise, that they really are developing some sort of model: https://the-decoder.com/stochastic-parrot-or-world-model-how-large-language-models-learn/ https://the-decoder.com/stochastic-parrot-or-world-model-how...
  - bbor 4y ago
    This is a hot take, would love a link/explanation on why you think neural nets are human-like. For example, from the op Ed you’re likely referencing: “ Their deepest flaw is the absence of the most critical capacity of any intelligence: to say not only what is the case, what was the case and what will be the case — that’s description and prediction — but also what is not the case and what could and could not be the case. Those are the ingredients of explanation, the mark of true intelligence.” Isn’t that just plainly true of LLMs? Sure they can produce text that looks like an explanation, and sure putting in a header telling it to spell out its reasoning will get it to output text that looks like reasoning, but I feel the nature of its hallucinations make it clear that it’s not actually performing those steps anywhere in the net. But maybe I’m just a Luddite? These technologies are amazing and transformative, I’m just shocked to see hate on HN of CHOMSKY of all people, the father of modern linguistics and cognitive science…
    - ogogmad 4y ago
      Why do you think this is impossible? Have you tried making an account on chat.openai.com? Because it can in fact do that right now; and even people who are otherwise skeptical of LLMs have panned Chomsky's article.
bigDinosaur 4y ago
That example was highly controversial, and I think Chomsky was actually right in that instance (all languages have recursion). Generally my understanding is that he's considered to have held the field of linguistics back quite a bit with a non-disprovable hypothesis.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

Given how emphatic he is about everything, the answer is clearly no.

HyperSane 4y ago

About foreign policy? No.

bandofthehawk 4y ago
Was he wrong to oppose the Vietnam war?
- HyperSane 4y ago
  He supported the communist though. He also supported Pol Pot. You can predict his opinions of foreign policy if you understand that he bases them on the "US is evil" axiom and therefore anyone who opposes it is good, no matter how actually evil they may be.
  - fulafel 4y ago
    The Pol Pot thing seems debunked: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-tr... The communism support doesn't seem to quite stick either if WP is to be believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_socialism_and_communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Ch... In Britannica and WP he's labeled an anarcho-syndicalist, so seems to be against both capitalism and noncapitalist authoritarian systems.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      Chomsky absolutely was a Cambodian Genocide denailist at the time. He very arrogantly dismissed actual eyewitness testimony of the genocide from refugees purely for ideological reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
      - fulafel 4y ago
        (Disclaimer: i'm just reading up about this now) Did you skip my first link or are you disagreeing with it? It's about the same subject. And in your WP link has a second quote writing about the genocide as fact. Another I think credible seeming article about it that seems to judge against denialism in an academic journal called "Genocide Studies and Prevention": https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1738&context=gsp https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... Chomsky's skepticism in the media criticism article talking (among other things) about a book about the then-contemporary events of course looks quite unfortunate in retrospect, but given the volume of work and constant writing about world events over a long career it seems to be a error in judgement in the moment, rather than denying history, especially as he evidently updated his views later as more evidence came about.