3 ms·

> Over time, they develop a sophisticated understanding of language, not by direct instruction of underlying rules, but through pattern recognition and contextu

> Over time, they develop a sophisticated understanding of language, not by direct instruction of underlying rules, but through pattern recognition and contextual inference from these outputs. Kids learn through supervised learning. Children don't develop strong language skills without parents or other people to correct them when they use language incorrectly. We don't use supervised learning on LLMs. There is no way we can train an LLM by using human supervisors to rate every output. It works for humans since humans learn with so few examples, supervising a kids language learning doesn't take much effort, a single person can easily manage it while doing it for an LLM would consume the whole worlds workforce for many years.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>Kids learn through supervised learning. Children don't develop strong language skills without parents or other people to correct them when they use language incorrectly. Untrue. Many cultures don't much speak to their children and they turn out just fine. It's fairly evident Language learning is primarily unsupervised. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parents-in-a-remote-amazon-village-barely-talk-to-their-babies-mdash-and-the-kids-are-fine/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parents-in-a-remo...
- Jensson 3y ago
  That doesn't say that parents don't correct kids, just that they don't speak to their infants. The initial words are learnt that way, but I don't think you master language without anyone to correct you when you make mistakes.
  - GolDDranks 3y ago
    This is simply not true. I am very well read in language acquisition research, and no evidence supports that children would need corrections to get language right.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    If they are correcting their kids, they are doing so far less than many parents and it evidently doesn't matter. I'm honestly curious as to why you think it's so important. Fringe Amazon groups aside, the number of parents extremely laissez-faire with correction is astounding and they raise kids that use language perfectly well. Even with parents that aren't laissez-faire, they're correcting a handful of times a day tops which can't even begin to account for full language proficiency. Children need correction yes but in a supervised way? There's no indication of that.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > they're correcting a handful of times a day tops which can't even begin to account for full language proficiency. How do you know? Humans learn from extremely few corrections, often just a single time is enough for the human to correct themselves and learn it for life. Kids learn the bulk from hearing and seeing examples. Then they fine tune that with the help of their parents and peers correcting them when they do it wrong. You can learn language and skills without those corrections, but it will be full of errors and mistakes that are easily corrected with an outsider pointing it out for you. If corrections weren't vital for human learning then humans wouldn't be so eager to correct each other when they make mistakes. There is no other purpose for it than to help them learn and get better. So your belief that those corrections doesn't do anything seems very unfounded, I'd like to see extremely strong evidence to the contrary to believe you here.
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        >How do you know? Humans learn from extremely few corrections, I've been around little children being raised. I have some grasp on how much supervised correction is happening. It's very very little. You don't seem to get it. Children know thousands of words fluently by age 5. This is consistent across many cultures and circumstances. You would need over a handful of corrections per day right from the day of birth to square how much children know. And this is all assuming one correction per word which as much as humans are great learners seems like a very dubious assumption. I don't know what else to tell you other than this obviously isn't happening.

famouswaffles 3y ago

>Kids learn through supervised learning. Children don't develop strong language skills without parents or other people to correct them when they use language incorrectly. Untrue. Many cultures don't much speak to their children and they turn out just fine. It's fairly evident Language learning is primarily unsupervised. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parents-in-a-remote-amazon-village-barely-talk-to-their-babies-mdash-and-the-kids-are-fine/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parents-in-a-remo...

Jensson 3y ago
That doesn't say that parents don't correct kids, just that they don't speak to their infants. The initial words are learnt that way, but I don't think you master language without anyone to correct you when you make mistakes.
- GolDDranks 3y ago
  This is simply not true. I am very well read in language acquisition research, and no evidence supports that children would need corrections to get language right.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  If they are correcting their kids, they are doing so far less than many parents and it evidently doesn't matter. I'm honestly curious as to why you think it's so important. Fringe Amazon groups aside, the number of parents extremely laissez-faire with correction is astounding and they raise kids that use language perfectly well. Even with parents that aren't laissez-faire, they're correcting a handful of times a day tops which can't even begin to account for full language proficiency. Children need correction yes but in a supervised way? There's no indication of that.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > they're correcting a handful of times a day tops which can't even begin to account for full language proficiency. How do you know? Humans learn from extremely few corrections, often just a single time is enough for the human to correct themselves and learn it for life. Kids learn the bulk from hearing and seeing examples. Then they fine tune that with the help of their parents and peers correcting them when they do it wrong. You can learn language and skills without those corrections, but it will be full of errors and mistakes that are easily corrected with an outsider pointing it out for you. If corrections weren't vital for human learning then humans wouldn't be so eager to correct each other when they make mistakes. There is no other purpose for it than to help them learn and get better. So your belief that those corrections doesn't do anything seems very unfounded, I'd like to see extremely strong evidence to the contrary to believe you here.
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      >How do you know? Humans learn from extremely few corrections, I've been around little children being raised. I have some grasp on how much supervised correction is happening. It's very very little. You don't seem to get it. Children know thousands of words fluently by age 5. This is consistent across many cultures and circumstances. You would need over a handful of corrections per day right from the day of birth to square how much children know. And this is all assuming one correction per word which as much as humans are great learners seems like a very dubious assumption. I don't know what else to tell you other than this obviously isn't happening.