4 ms·

The authors of this paper are just another instance of the AI hype being used by people who have no connection to it, to attract some kind of attention. "Here

The authors of this paper are just another instance of the AI hype being used by people who have no connection to it, to attract some kind of attention. "Here is what we think about this current hot topic; please read our stuff and cite generously ..." > Language completeness assumes that a distinct and complete thing such as `a natural language' exists, the essential characteristics of which can be effectively and comprehensively modelled by an LLM Replace "LLM" by "linguistics". Same thing. > The assumption of data completeness relies on the belief that a language can be quantified and wholly captured by data. That's all that a baby has, who becomes a native speaker of their surrounding language. Language acquisition does not imply totality of data. Not every native speaker recognizes exactly the same vocabulary and exactly the same set of grammar rules.

IshKebab 2y ago
Babies have feedback and interaction with someone speaking to them. Would they learn to speak if you just dumped them in front of a TV and never spoke to them? I'm not sure. But anyway I agree with you. This is just a confused HN comment in paper form.
- xpe 2y ago
  I personally don’t get much value out of the paper, but it is orders of magnitude more substantive and thoughtful than a median “confused Hacker News comment”.
- keybored 2y ago
  > Babies have feedback and interaction with someone speaking to them. Would they learn to speak if you just dumped them in front of a TV and never spoke to them? I'm not sure. Feedback and interaction is not vital for acquisition for secondary language learning at least according to one theory. And if that’s good enough for adults it might be good enough for sponge-brain babies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis
JohnKemeny 2y ago
They are two researchers/assistant professors working with cognitive science, psychology, and trustworthy AI. The paper is peer reviewed and has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Language Sciences. You should publish your critique of their research in that same journal. P.s. if you find any grave mistakes, you can contact the editor in chief, who happens to be a linguist.
- kazinator 2y ago
  > You should publish your critique of their research in that same journal. No thanks; that would be at least twice removed from Making Stuff. (Once removed is writing about Making Stuff.)
  - lgas 2y ago
    One might argue that a critique itself is stuff.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  An appeal to authority if ever there was one. Their critique is written here, in plain english. Any fault with it you can just mention. The "I won't read your comment unless you get X journal to publish it" seems really counterproductive. Presumably even the great Journal of Language Sciences is not above making mistakes or publishing things that are not perfect.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    >> An appeal to authority if ever there was one. I read it as a clear refutation of the assertion that the authors "have no connection" to AI (or to AI hype; unclear from the OP). Btw, the OP is a typical ad-hominem, drawing attention to who is speaking rather than what they're saying.
- mquander 2y ago
  The "efficient journal hypothesis" -- if something is written in a paper in a journal, then it's impossible for anyone to know any better, since if they knew better, they would already have published the correction in a journal.
xpe 2y ago
Please argue on the merits and substance. I’m less interested in speculation on the authors’ motivations.
- xpe 2y ago
  The parent comment I responded to is speculative and does not argue on the merits. We can do better here. Are there people who ride the hype wave of AI? Sure. But how can you tell from where you sit? How do you come to such a judgment? Are you being thoughtful and rational? Have you considered an alternative explanation? I think the odds are much greater that the authors’ academic roots/training is at odds with what you think is productive. (This is what I think, BTW. I found the paper to be a waste of my time. Perhaps others can get value from it?) But I don’t pretend to know the authors’ motivations, nor will I cast aspersions on them. When one casts shade on a person like the comment above did, one invites and deserves this level of criticism.

IshKebab 2y ago

Babies have feedback and interaction with someone speaking to them. Would they learn to speak if you just dumped them in front of a TV and never spoke to them? I'm not sure. But anyway I agree with you. This is just a confused HN comment in paper form.

xpe 2y ago
I personally don’t get much value out of the paper, but it is orders of magnitude more substantive and thoughtful than a median “confused Hacker News comment”.
keybored 2y ago
> Babies have feedback and interaction with someone speaking to them. Would they learn to speak if you just dumped them in front of a TV and never spoke to them? I'm not sure. Feedback and interaction is not vital for acquisition for secondary language learning at least according to one theory. And if that’s good enough for adults it might be good enough for sponge-brain babies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis

JohnKemeny 2y ago

They are two researchers/assistant professors working with cognitive science, psychology, and trustworthy AI. The paper is peer reviewed and has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Language Sciences. You should publish your critique of their research in that same journal. P.s. if you find any grave mistakes, you can contact the editor in chief, who happens to be a linguist.

kazinator 2y ago
> You should publish your critique of their research in that same journal. No thanks; that would be at least twice removed from Making Stuff. (Once removed is writing about Making Stuff.)
- lgas 2y ago
  One might argue that a critique itself is stuff.
lucianbr 2y ago
An appeal to authority if ever there was one. Their critique is written here, in plain english. Any fault with it you can just mention. The "I won't read your comment unless you get X journal to publish it" seems really counterproductive. Presumably even the great Journal of Language Sciences is not above making mistakes or publishing things that are not perfect.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  >> An appeal to authority if ever there was one. I read it as a clear refutation of the assertion that the authors "have no connection" to AI (or to AI hype; unclear from the OP). Btw, the OP is a typical ad-hominem, drawing attention to who is speaking rather than what they're saying.
mquander 2y ago
The "efficient journal hypothesis" -- if something is written in a paper in a journal, then it's impossible for anyone to know any better, since if they knew better, they would already have published the correction in a journal.

xpe 2y ago

Please argue on the merits and substance. I’m less interested in speculation on the authors’ motivations.

xpe 2y ago
The parent comment I responded to is speculative and does not argue on the merits. We can do better here. Are there people who ride the hype wave of AI? Sure. But how can you tell from where you sit? How do you come to such a judgment? Are you being thoughtful and rational? Have you considered an alternative explanation? I think the odds are much greater that the authors’ academic roots/training is at odds with what you think is productive. (This is what I think, BTW. I found the paper to be a waste of my time. Perhaps others can get value from it?) But I don’t pretend to know the authors’ motivations, nor will I cast aspersions on them. When one casts shade on a person like the comment above did, one invites and deserves this level of criticism.