2 ms·
So, I think that we differ at a fundamental level. While you prefer to work in a Neoplatonic world of ideas, I prefer empirical facts and convictions that all
by stared 2y ago
So, I think that we differ at a fundamental level.
While you prefer to work in a Neoplatonic world of ideas, I prefer empirical facts and convictions that all models are approximations.
English grammar is not fixed per se; it evolves with region (have you ever been to Singapore?) and time. Your judgment (or Chomsky's, or anyone), however founded, is not a fact. It is an opinion up for experimental scrutiny.
I don't say that your examples are incorrect. Still, measure the percentage of correct (or consistent) answers for humans against particular models. Otherwise, it might be maths, might be philosophy, might be arts, but it is not (empirical) science.
- foldr 2y agoAs far as I can see, your issue with Chomsky has nothing to do with the performance of modern LLMs. You just reject all the data that generative linguists take to be crucially informative as to the grammatical structure of natural languages. You would hold the same view if LLMs had never been invented. So it is really a common case of AI and cognitive science talking entirely at cross purposes. > English grammar is not fixed per se; it evolves with region (have you ever been to Singapore?) and time. Sure, but this is not the case for the examples I gave. There aren’t dialects of English where (b) has the interpretation that GPT-4o thinks it can have. It’s no use trying to muddy the empirical waters in the case of completely clear judgments about what English sentences can and can’t mean.