Dissociating language and thought in large language models · HackerPapers discussions

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — HN submission

Sat, 21 Sep 2024 23:47:06 GMT

Dissociating language and thought in large language models

42 points; 4 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — mentioned by beanbean01

Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:42:34 GMT

Here's the problem with LLMs: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627 Basically, they're missing a lot of the brain machinery required to function. For example, if you ask them to solve a math problem, they do just fine ... until you ask them to apply an inference rule on top of it that takes them outside of their training set. The result is something that LOOKS like AGI until you realize it's read the entire Internet.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — mentioned by rileyphone

Wed, 19 Jul 2023 03:50:51 GMT

There's a decent amount of research that supports this view [1][2]. How else do you explain the unreasonable effectiveness of transformer-based language models? 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014272371986973... 2. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.06627.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — mentioned by beanbean01

Fri, 05 May 2023 19:47:05 GMT

To properly explain this would take longer than the length of the comment limit (is there a length limit? I don't know, but even if there isn't I don't feel like explaining this for the 70th time), but here's why: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.06627.pdf To sum up: a human can think outside of their training distribution, an LLM cannot. A larger training distribution simply means you have to go farther outside the norm. In order to solve this problem would require multiple other processing architectures besides an LLM, and a human-like AGI…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — mentioned by geraneum

Fri, 07 Apr 2023 17:59:13 GMT

> the idea that you can't get a very good statistical approximation to knowing and reasoning via a computer seem naively prone anthropocentrism. I don't think this is being questioned in general right now, but rather the claim is: You can't get a very good statistical approximation to knowing and reasoning via _just analyzing the language_. Language is evidently not enough on its own [1]. According to some researchers [2], the system needs to be "grounded" (think of it as being given common sense). Although there's apparently no consensus [3] among scientists on how to _fundamentally_ solve…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — HN submission

Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:02:53 GMT

Dissociating language, thought in large language models: a cognitive perspective

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — mentioned by ttctciyf

Sun, 12 Feb 2023 00:02:50 GMT

Amusing dialog, and quite germane - Yorick claims to hold a cognitivist perspective (that meaning comes from 'handling symbols', see also [1]) while the final paragraph ironically expresses a healthy skepticism of cognitivism which (IMO) is justified: we all have to 'take it on faith' that things mean what we want them to mean. That is, as Wittgenstein famously pointed out, the meaning of utterances is given by their use and not by some mysterious psychical accompaniment or the grinding of symbolic gears in the brain: > There must surely be a further, different connexion between my talk and…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — mentioned by geraneum

Sat, 11 Feb 2023 19:56:42 GMT

> … but never any data to substantiate the claim There is! https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627 From the paper: > Based on this evidence, we argue that (1) contemporary LLMs should be taken seriously as models of formal linguistic skills; (2) models that master real-life language use would need to incorporate or develop not only a core language module, but also multiple non-language-specific cognitive capacities required for modeling thought.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — mentioned by blackbear_

Fri, 03 Feb 2023 07:29:26 GMT

Interesting opinions here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — mentioned by hprotagonist

Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:07:37 GMT

http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — HN submission

Tue, 24 Jan 2023 01:00:14 GMT

Dissociating language and thought in LLMs: a cognitive perspective

3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — HN submission

Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:24:08 GMT

Dissociating language and thought in large language models

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Dissociating language and thought in large language models — HN submission

Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:58:22 GMT

Dissociating language and thought in large language models

1 point; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.