3 ms·
> understanding' simply means knowing a man is to a woman what a king is to a queen, but without the need to learn about words and letters (that should be just
by jncfhnb 2y ago
> understanding' simply means knowing a man is to a woman what a king is to a queen, but without the need to learn about words and letters (that should be just an interface).
Citation needed
- halgir 2y agoThat stuck out to me too. There is a (not universally accepted) idea that language itself determines our capacity for understanding, called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. While it traditionally relates to humans, I've been casually working to apply it to LLMs as well.
- xucian 2y agosee my reply above
- xucian 2y agoagree, it's more of an "according to me" statement I'm sure I can find citations for both cases: meaning causing language and language causing meaning, so it'd only artificially support my reasoning but I strongly feel thinking about it through first principles points more towards meaning causing language. an example is being able to imagine things, connections, processes: our ancestors wanted to convey whatever was in their brain to other members of the tribe (how big the lion that just ripped off their hand was, how fresh the berries were and where are they, how complex did the sky become after they ate those weird mushrooms, what happens if he uses a sharp object instead of a rock and why that's safer etc.). language evolved as a need to convey what your brain is 'seeing' but yes, language definitely influences our perception about concepts, and it even predisposes us to certain beliefs, it's like a cage we're trapped our whole lives in if we're not fortunate enough to come across the right books/articles that set us free in English, you say "Brevity is the soul of wit", in Romanian you say "Lots of talking -- man's poverty" (rough translation). the first is more positive than the second, but they're basically pointing to the same idea