I don't think this cursory look at the abstracts and first pages of these papers is achieving the effect you intended. The first quote summarize the findings (

I don't think this cursory look at the abstracts and first pages of these papers is achieving the effect you intended. The first quote summarize the findings (page 4) of Tversky & Shafir, 1992. Google indicates this paper has 978 citations. >is STONE LION a STONE This is called a typicality test. Jurafsky, Lecun & two more fellows dropped this paper recently: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.17117 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.17117 (emphasis mine) >This work aims to bridge this gap by integrating cognitive psychology, information theory, and modern NLP. We pose three central research questions to guide our investigation: [RQ1]: To what extent do concepts emergent in LLMs align with human-defined conceptual categories? [RQ2]: Do LLMs and humans exhibit similar internal geometric structures within these concepts, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING ITEM TYPICALITY? RQ3]: How do humans and LLMs differ in their strategies for balancing representational compression with the preservation of semantic fidelity when forming concepts? It would be interesting to try to reproduce Hampton's original experiment on typicality with LLMs and run the same analysis as https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.2362 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.2362. Anyway thanks for the exchange. Running these thoughts once more in my head allowed me to reconsider some stuff I found about Zipf distributions that might tie into the tradeoff between compression and meaning Lecun is talking about. The quantum zipf stuff is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06845 https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06845 It's here too: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1061920806030071 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1061920806030071 >quantum field theory Chomsky is working on Hopf Algebra. https://magazine.caltech.edu/post/math-language-marcolli-noam-chomsky https://magazine.caltech.edu/post/math-language-marcolli-noa...