4 ms·

Gary Marcus has a very particular view of human psychology that was popular for a while, especially in the early 2000s. Major proponents include Steven Pinker,

Gary Marcus has a very particular view of human psychology that was popular for a while, especially in the early 2000s. Major proponents include Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, Jerry Fodor. This view was heavily influenced by symbolic computers when symbolic computers were new and so held some mental share leading into the dotcom boom. For several reasons, one of which is the replication crisis, this view is no longer nearly as popular. One of the major beliefs of this view is that LLMs are essentially impossible because there's not enough information in language to learn it unless you have a special purpose language-learning module built into the brain by evolution. This is Chomsky's "poverty of the stimulus" argument. Marcus still defends this view and because of this bias is committed to trying to prove to everyone that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion. There's a sense in which they threaten his fundamental concept of how the brain works. In proposing and defending these views he appears to me and others to be having a sort of internal crisis that's playing out publicly where his need to be right about this is coloring his judgment and objectivity.

pinnochio 11mo ago
> LLMs are essentially impossible > trying to prove to everyone that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion This is such poor phrasing I can't help but wonder if it was intentional. The argument is over whether LLMs are capable of AGI, not whether "LLMs are possible". You also 100% do not have to buy into Chomsky's theory of the brain to believe LLMs won't achieve AGI.
- ants_everywhere 11mo ago
  We weren't talking about AGI. It sounds like that's a topic you are interested in. It's a fine topic just not the one we're discussing. And my phrasing was wonderful and perfect.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago
    > And my phrasing was wonderful and perfect. Do you use LLMs to post on HN? I'm asking seriously.
    - ants_everywhere 11mo ago
      Nope. I would appreciate if you and the GP not personally insult me when you have a question though. You may feel that you know Marcus to be into one particular thing but some of us have been familiar with his work long before he pivoted to AI.
      - pinnochio 11mo ago
        There are two problems with your post. The first is that your phrasing "that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion" collapses the claim being made to the point where it looks as if you're saying Marcus believes people are just deluded that something called a "LLM" exists in the world. But even allowing for some inference as to what you actually meant, it remains ambiguous whether you are talking about language acquisition (which you are in your 2nd paragraph) or the genuine understanding and reasoning / robust world model induction necessary for AGI, which is the focus of Marcus' recent discussion on LLMs, and why we're even talking about Marcus here in the first place. You seem more familiar with Marcus' thinking on language acquisition than I, so I can only assume that his thinking on language acquisition and LLMs is somewhat related to his thinking on understanding and reasoning / world model induction and LLMs. But it doesn't appear to me, based on what I've read of Marcus, that his claims about the latter really depend on Chomsky. Which brings me to the 2nd problem with your post, where you make the uncharitable claim that "he appears to me and others to be having a sort of internal crisis that's playing out publicly", as if it were simply impossible to believe that LLMs are not capable of genuine understanding / robust world model induction otherwise.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago
        I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. To explain the reason: you seem to use some particular wordings that just seem strange to me, such as first saying that Marcus position is that "LLMs are impossible" which is either false or incredibly imprecise shortcut for "AGI using LLMs is impossible", and then claiming it was beautiful. I didn't mean to attack you personally and I'm really sorry if it sounded this way. I appreciate the generally positive atmosphere on HN and I believe it more important than the actual argument, whatever it may be.
  - kaycey2022 11mo ago
    Your reasoning seems clear enough to me. cmiiw, you’re saying Marcus says LLMs don’t really understand language and only present an illusion of that understanding. And that illusion will noticeably break at a certain scale. And to be honest when context windows get filled up to a certain point, they do become unintelligible and stupid. In spite of this, I think LLMs display intelligence and for me that is more useful than their understanding of language. I haven’t read anything from Chomsky tbh. The utility of LLMs come from their intelligence and the price point at which it is achieved. Ideally the discussion should focus on that. The deeper discussion of AGI should not worry the policy makers or the general public. But unfortunately, business seems intent on diving into the philosophical arguments of how to achieve AGI because that is the logic they have chosen to convince people into giving them more and more capital. And that is what makes Marcus’ and his friends’ critique relevant. One can’t really critique people like Marcus saying he is being academic and pedantic on LLM capabilities, are they real, are they not etc when the money is relentlessly chasing those un-achieved capabilities. So even though you’re saying we aren’t talking about AGI and this isn’t the topic, everything kind of circles back into AGI and the amount of money being poured into chasing that.
foldr 11mo ago
> One of the major beliefs of this view is that LLMs are essentially impossible because there's not enough information in language to learn it unless you have a special purpose language-learning module built into the brain by evolution. This is Chomsky's "poverty of the stimulus" argument The argument is that there is not enough information available to a child to do this. So even if we grant the dubious premise that LLMs have learned to speak languages in a manner analogous to humans, they are not a counterexample to Chomsky’s poverty of the stimulus argument because they have been trained on a vast array of linguistic data that is not available within a single human childhood. If you want to better understand Chomsky’s position, it’s easiest to do so in relation to other animals. Why are other intelligent animals not able to learn human languages? The rather unsurprising answer, in Chomsky’s view, is that humans have a built-in linguistic capacity, rather in the way that e.g. bats have a built in capacity for echolocation. The claim that bats have a built-in capacity for echolocation is not refuted by the existence of sonar. Likewise, our ability to construct machines that mimic some aspects of human linguistic capacity does not automatically refute the hypothesis that this is a specific human capacity absent in other animals. Imagine if sonar engineers were constantly shitting on chiropterologists because their silly theory of bats having evolved a capacity for echolocation has now been refuted by human-constructed sonar arrays. The argument makes so little sense that it’s difficult to even imagine the scenario. But the argument against Chomsky from LLMs doesn’t really make any more sense, on reflection. Chomsky hasn’t helped his case in recent years by tacking his name on some dumb articles about LLMs that he didn’t actually write. (A warning to us all that retirement is a good idea.) So I don’t blame people who are excited about LLMs for seeing him as a bit of rube, but the supposed conflict between Chomsky and LLMs is entirely artificial. Chomsky is (was) trying to do cognitive science. People experimenting with LLMs are not, on the other hand, making any serious effort to study how humans acquire language, and so have very little of substance to argue with Chomsky about. They are just taking opportunistic pot shots at a Big Name because it’s a good way to get attention. For the record, Chomsky himself has never made any very specific claims about a dedicated module in the brain or about the evolutionary origins of human linguistic capacity (except for some skeptical comments on it being a gradual adaptation).
- ants_everywhere 11mo ago
dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago
> LLMs are essentially impossible This is the worst misrepresentation of Marcus' argument I've seen so far.
- ants_everywhere 11mo ago
  Nothing in my comment is a misrepresentation. It may help to look up some of the words I mention in the comment if you're unsure what they mean. Also Gary Marcus doesn't make an "argument" in the singular. He's a researcher with decades of public work and private work.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago
    But you need to agree that we can single out one specific argument he is most famous for, right? And when Josh Wolfe is saying that "Apple Gary Marcus'd LLM's reasoning ability", it does refer to a very specific issue of whether LLMs can lead to AGI or not. I don't know whether he's right or wrong, but deep down I feel the amount of money funneled in the Transformed architecture might have blocked other approaches, both potentially promising and others doomed for failure, just because LLMs' quick wins.
FilosofumRex 11mo ago
Chomsky and Pinker (I don't Fodor), are entertainers and their theories are good only for PhD pumpers. How human brain works and the associated neuroscience has absolutely nothing to do with LLMs which simply are empirically defined function approximations. The problem with Sam Altman is that he is a shyster and leech feeding off the hard work of thousands of programmers and engineers.

pinnochio 11mo ago

> LLMs are essentially impossible > trying to prove to everyone that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion This is such poor phrasing I can't help but wonder if it was intentional. The argument is over whether LLMs are capable of AGI, not whether "LLMs are possible". You also 100% do not have to buy into Chomsky's theory of the brain to believe LLMs won't achieve AGI.

ants_everywhere 11mo ago
We weren't talking about AGI. It sounds like that's a topic you are interested in. It's a fine topic just not the one we're discussing. And my phrasing was wonderful and perfect.
- dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago
  > And my phrasing was wonderful and perfect. Do you use LLMs to post on HN? I'm asking seriously.
  - ants_everywhere 11mo ago
    Nope. I would appreciate if you and the GP not personally insult me when you have a question though. You may feel that you know Marcus to be into one particular thing but some of us have been familiar with his work long before he pivoted to AI.
    - pinnochio 11mo ago
      There are two problems with your post. The first is that your phrasing "that LLMs are not possible or at least that they're some kind of illusion" collapses the claim being made to the point where it looks as if you're saying Marcus believes people are just deluded that something called a "LLM" exists in the world. But even allowing for some inference as to what you actually meant, it remains ambiguous whether you are talking about language acquisition (which you are in your 2nd paragraph) or the genuine understanding and reasoning / robust world model induction necessary for AGI, which is the focus of Marcus' recent discussion on LLMs, and why we're even talking about Marcus here in the first place. You seem more familiar with Marcus' thinking on language acquisition than I, so I can only assume that his thinking on language acquisition and LLMs is somewhat related to his thinking on understanding and reasoning / world model induction and LLMs. But it doesn't appear to me, based on what I've read of Marcus, that his claims about the latter really depend on Chomsky. Which brings me to the 2nd problem with your post, where you make the uncharitable claim that "he appears to me and others to be having a sort of internal crisis that's playing out publicly", as if it were simply impossible to believe that LLMs are not capable of genuine understanding / robust world model induction otherwise.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago
      I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. To explain the reason: you seem to use some particular wordings that just seem strange to me, such as first saying that Marcus position is that "LLMs are impossible" which is either false or incredibly imprecise shortcut for "AGI using LLMs is impossible", and then claiming it was beautiful. I didn't mean to attack you personally and I'm really sorry if it sounded this way. I appreciate the generally positive atmosphere on HN and I believe it more important than the actual argument, whatever it may be.
- kaycey2022 11mo ago
  Your reasoning seems clear enough to me. cmiiw, you’re saying Marcus says LLMs don’t really understand language and only present an illusion of that understanding. And that illusion will noticeably break at a certain scale. And to be honest when context windows get filled up to a certain point, they do become unintelligible and stupid. In spite of this, I think LLMs display intelligence and for me that is more useful than their understanding of language. I haven’t read anything from Chomsky tbh. The utility of LLMs come from their intelligence and the price point at which it is achieved. Ideally the discussion should focus on that. The deeper discussion of AGI should not worry the policy makers or the general public. But unfortunately, business seems intent on diving into the philosophical arguments of how to achieve AGI because that is the logic they have chosen to convince people into giving them more and more capital. And that is what makes Marcus’ and his friends’ critique relevant. One can’t really critique people like Marcus saying he is being academic and pedantic on LLM capabilities, are they real, are they not etc when the money is relentlessly chasing those un-achieved capabilities. So even though you’re saying we aren’t talking about AGI and this isn’t the topic, everything kind of circles back into AGI and the amount of money being poured into chasing that.

foldr 11mo ago

> One of the major beliefs of this view is that LLMs are essentially impossible because there's not enough information in language to learn it unless you have a special purpose language-learning module built into the brain by evolution. This is Chomsky's "poverty of the stimulus" argument The argument is that there is not enough information available to a child to do this. So even if we grant the dubious premise that LLMs have learned to speak languages in a manner analogous to humans, they are not a counterexample to Chomsky’s poverty of the stimulus argument because they have been trained on a vast array of linguistic data that is not available within a single human childhood. If you want to better understand Chomsky’s position, it’s easiest to do so in relation to other animals. Why are other intelligent animals not able to learn human languages? The rather unsurprising answer, in Chomsky’s view, is that humans have a built-in linguistic capacity, rather in the way that e.g. bats have a built in capacity for echolocation. The claim that bats have a built-in capacity for echolocation is not refuted by the existence of sonar. Likewise, our ability to construct machines that mimic some aspects of human linguistic capacity does not automatically refute the hypothesis that this is a specific human capacity absent in other animals. Imagine if sonar engineers were constantly shitting on chiropterologists because their silly theory of bats having evolved a capacity for echolocation has now been refuted by human-constructed sonar arrays. The argument makes so little sense that it’s difficult to even imagine the scenario. But the argument against Chomsky from LLMs doesn’t really make any more sense, on reflection. Chomsky hasn’t helped his case in recent years by tacking his name on some dumb articles about LLMs that he didn’t actually write. (A warning to us all that retirement is a good idea.) So I don’t blame people who are excited about LLMs for seeing him as a bit of rube, but the supposed conflict between Chomsky and LLMs is entirely artificial. Chomsky is (was) trying to do cognitive science. People experimenting with LLMs are not, on the other hand, making any serious effort to study how humans acquire language, and so have very little of substance to argue with Chomsky about. They are just taking opportunistic pot shots at a Big Name because it’s a good way to get attention. For the record, Chomsky himself has never made any very specific claims about a dedicated module in the brain or about the evolutionary origins of human linguistic capacity (except for some skeptical comments on it being a gradual adaptation).

ants_everywhere 11mo ago

dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago

> LLMs are essentially impossible This is the worst misrepresentation of Marcus' argument I've seen so far.

ants_everywhere 11mo ago
Nothing in my comment is a misrepresentation. It may help to look up some of the words I mention in the comment if you're unsure what they mean. Also Gary Marcus doesn't make an "argument" in the singular. He's a researcher with decades of public work and private work.
- dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago
  But you need to agree that we can single out one specific argument he is most famous for, right? And when Josh Wolfe is saying that "Apple Gary Marcus'd LLM's reasoning ability", it does refer to a very specific issue of whether LLMs can lead to AGI or not. I don't know whether he's right or wrong, but deep down I feel the amount of money funneled in the Transformed architecture might have blocked other approaches, both potentially promising and others doomed for failure, just because LLMs' quick wins.

FilosofumRex 11mo ago

Chomsky and Pinker (I don't Fodor), are entertainers and their theories are good only for PhD pumpers. How human brain works and the associated neuroscience has absolutely nothing to do with LLMs which simply are empirically defined function approximations. The problem with Sam Altman is that he is a shyster and leech feeding off the hard work of thousands of programmers and engineers.