A Philosophical Introduction to Language Models -- Part I: Continuity With Classic Debates · HackerPapers discussions

A Philosophical Introduction to Language Models -- Part I: Continuity With Classic Debates — mentioned by stalfie

Sun, 12 Jul 2026 16:23:53 GMT

Sure, here are some citations: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03910?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.... https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.04666 https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.00901 https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2407.11015 https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2202.05262 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13646... My point was not to argue one point or another about LLM intelligence, but to push against the notion that you have to be "delusional" to even argue that it is possible that LLMs can qualify as intelligent (although the op…

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

A Philosophical Introduction to Language Models -- Part I: Continuity With Classic Debates — mentioned by lgessler

Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:52:06 GMT

Raphaël Millière has a very useful term for this kind of vacuous dismissal, the redescription fallacy (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.03910, page 9): > Recent debates have been clouded by a misleading inference pattern, which we term the “Redescription Fallacy.” This fallacy arises when critics argue that a system cannot model a particular cognitive capacity, simply because its operations can be explained in less abstract and more deflationary terms. In the present context, the fallacy manifests in claims that LLMs could not possibly be good models of some cognitive capacity because their…

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

A Philosophical Introduction to Language Models -- Part I: Continuity With Classic Debates — HN submission

Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:11:18 GMT

A Philosophical Introduction to Language Models

83 points; 24 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.