It’s uncontroversial now that the class of string languages roughly corresponding to “human languages” is mildly context sensitive in a particular sense. This d

It’s uncontroversial now that the class of string languages roughly corresponding to “human languages” is mildly context sensitive in a particular sense. This debate was hashed out in the 80s and 90s. I don’t think formal languages classes have much to tell us about the capabilities of LLMs in any case. >Also empirically human language don't have that much recursion. You can artificially construct such examples, but beyond a certain depth people won't be able to parse it either. If you limit recursion depth then everything is regular, so the Chomsky hierarchy is of little application.