3 ms·
> Don't try and say anything pro-linguistics here, (...) Shit-talking LLMs without providing any basis or substance is not what I would call "pro-linguistics".
by motorest 2y ago
> Don't try and say anything pro-linguistics here, (...)
Shit-talking LLMs without providing any basis or substance is not what I would call "pro-linguistics". It just sounds like petty spiteful behavior, lashing out out of frustration for rendering old models obsolete.
- suddenlybananas 2y agoFrom a scientific explanatory perspective, the old models are not obsolete because they are explanatory whereas LLMs do not explain anything about human linguistic behaviour.
- motorest 2y agoOn one hand you have models which you argue are explanatory, but arguably do not work. On the other hand, you have models that not only work but took the world by storm, and may or may not be made explanatory. You either invest more work getting one explanatory model to work, or invest more work getting a working model to become explanatory. What do you think is the fruitful research path?
- suddenlybananas 2y agoWhat do you mean "work"? Their goal is not to be some general purpose AI. (To be clear I'm talking narrowly about computational linguistics, not old fashioned NLP more broadly).