3 ms·

I view this as the language processing is similar but we’re not talking about thinking, just processing language. I see this as maybe it’s not a statistical pa

I view this as the language processing is similar but we’re not talking about thinking, just processing language. I see this as maybe it’s not a statistical parrot, but it’s still only some kind of parrot, Maybe a sleep deprived one.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > the vast number of internal models of the world that are generated strictly from text input Do you mean in the sense than an LLM can emit documents following grammar rules or pirate-talk? For humans, text doesn't generate our models so much as as it triggers them.
famouswaffles 2y ago
There isn't really any clear delineation between 'thinking' and 'language processing' in the brain.
- aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
  That's 100% false, dogs and pigeons can obviously think, and it is childish to suppose that their thoughts are a sequence of woofs or coos. Trying to make an AI that thinks like a human without being able to think like a chimpanzee gives you reasoning LLMs that can spit out proofs in algebraic topology, yet still struggle with out-of-distribution counting problems which frogs and fish can solve.
- wruza 2y ago
  How human brains process thoughts is non-uniform across population. There’s imagery, written language, sound, speech, tactile, etc. Not everything that you think about is readily expressible in your language. There are definitely people with and without “internal screen”, and probably few more types with/without X, where X is a set of things we’ve never talked about, either assuming everyone has it or not realizing that it’s a non-mandatory part of how you think.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how does the brain look when you do both ? Is there a clear difference ? There's no 'thinking mode' followed by a 'language processing mode'. Language processing is thinking as far the brain is concerned and there's no evidence that these are 2 cleanly separated processes whether you 'think' in words or not.
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      That's not true, the Moro experiments show they use different capacities as do similar experiments on people who have certain severe cognitive deficiencies that don't impact language processing (e.g. the subject "Chris")
      - famouswaffles 2y ago
        My argument is that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. Language is a lot more than parsing syntax, whatever your thoughts are on the matter, even LLMs are clearly doing more than that. Are there any experiments where subjects had severe cognitive deficiencies and language in its full breadth or maybe i should say communication ? came out unscathed ? The chris experiments don't seem to go into much detail in that front.
        foobarqux 2y ago
        I just gave one: "Chris". Here's Chomsky describing the "Chris"-experiments ([1]) as part of a broader answer about how language is distinct from general cognition which I paraphrased above. > That doesn't contradict the argument that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. It's not an argument, it's an assertion, that is, in fact, contradicted by the experimental evidence I described (Moro and "Chris"). Of course they are "deeply intertwined" but because of the evidence it's probably an interface between two distinctive systems rather than one general system doing two tasks. https://youtu.be/Rgd8BnZ2-iw?si=_UdBfG1InmpjbDPB&t=6735 https://youtu.be/Rgd8BnZ2-iw?si=_UdBfG1InmpjbDPB&t=6735

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 2y ago
> the vast number of internal models of the world that are generated strictly from text input Do you mean in the sense than an LLM can emit documents following grammar rules or pirate-talk? For humans, text doesn't generate our models so much as as it triggers them.

famouswaffles 2y ago

There isn't really any clear delineation between 'thinking' and 'language processing' in the brain.

aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
That's 100% false, dogs and pigeons can obviously think, and it is childish to suppose that their thoughts are a sequence of woofs or coos. Trying to make an AI that thinks like a human without being able to think like a chimpanzee gives you reasoning LLMs that can spit out proofs in algebraic topology, yet still struggle with out-of-distribution counting problems which frogs and fish can solve.
wruza 2y ago
How human brains process thoughts is non-uniform across population. There’s imagery, written language, sound, speech, tactile, etc. Not everything that you think about is readily expressible in your language. There are definitely people with and without “internal screen”, and probably few more types with/without X, where X is a set of things we’ve never talked about, either assuming everyone has it or not realizing that it’s a non-mandatory part of how you think.
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how does the brain look when you do both ? Is there a clear difference ? There's no 'thinking mode' followed by a 'language processing mode'. Language processing is thinking as far the brain is concerned and there's no evidence that these are 2 cleanly separated processes whether you 'think' in words or not.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    That's not true, the Moro experiments show they use different capacities as do similar experiments on people who have certain severe cognitive deficiencies that don't impact language processing (e.g. the subject "Chris")
    - famouswaffles 2y ago
      My argument is that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. Language is a lot more than parsing syntax, whatever your thoughts are on the matter, even LLMs are clearly doing more than that. Are there any experiments where subjects had severe cognitive deficiencies and language in its full breadth or maybe i should say communication ? came out unscathed ? The chris experiments don't seem to go into much detail in that front.
      - foobarqux 2y ago
        I just gave one: "Chris". Here's Chomsky describing the "Chris"-experiments ([1]) as part of a broader answer about how language is distinct from general cognition which I paraphrased above. > That doesn't contradict the argument that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. It's not an argument, it's an assertion, that is, in fact, contradicted by the experimental evidence I described (Moro and "Chris"). Of course they are "deeply intertwined" but because of the evidence it's probably an interface between two distinctive systems rather than one general system doing two tasks. https://youtu.be/Rgd8BnZ2-iw?si=_UdBfG1InmpjbDPB&t=6735 https://youtu.be/Rgd8BnZ2-iw?si=_UdBfG1InmpjbDPB&t=6735