4 ms·
> 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
by foldr 1y 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 1y agoThere was a large literature on language acquisition prior to the invention of LLMs that showed that Chomsky's argument likely wasn't correct. This is in addition to the fact that he significantly underestimated the amount of linguistic input children receive. There's too much to hash it out here in HN. You can try to save the LAD argument by a strategic retreat, but it's been in retreat for decades now and keeps losing ground. It's clear that neural networks can learn the rules of grammar without specifically baking grammatical hierarchies into the network. You can retreat to saying it's about setting hyper parameters or priors but even the evidence for that is marginal. There are certainly features of the brain that make language learning easier (such as size) but POS doesn't really provide anything to guide research and is mostly of historical interest now. It's a claim that something is impossible, which is a strong claim. And the evidence for it is poor. It's not clear it would have any adherents if it were proposed anew today. And this is all before LLMs enter the picture. The research from neuroscience and learning theory and machine learning etc have all pointed toward a view of the brain as significantly different from the psychological nativism view. When many prominent results in the nativist camp failed to replicate during the replicability crisis, most big name researchers pivoted to other fields. Marcus is one of the remaining vocal holdouts for nativism. And his beliefs about AI align very closely with all the old debates about statistical learning models vs symbolic manipulation etc. > Why are other intelligent animals not able to learn human languages? Animals and plants do communicate with each other in structured ways. Animals can learn to communicate with humans. This is one of those areas where you can choose to try to see the continuities with communication or you can try to define a vision of language that isolates human language as completely set apart. I think human language is more like an outlier in complexity to the communication animals do rather than a fundamentally different thing. In that sense there's not much of a mystery given brain size, number of neurons, sociality etc. > The argument is that there is not enough information available to a child to do this Yes, but children are the humans who earn language in the typical case. So you can replace "child" with "human" especially with all the hedging I did in my first post (e.g. "essentially"). As I said above Chomsky is known to have underestimated the amount of input babies receive. Babies hear language from the moment they're born until they learn to speak. Also, as a parent, I often correct grammatical and other mistakes as toddlers learn to talk. Other parents do the same. Part of the POS is based on the premise that children don't get their grammar corrected often.