427
Noam Chomsky, 95, ‘no longer able to talk’ as intellectual’s ‘health deteriorates’
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
427 points (98.2% liked)
Philosophy
1248 readers
1 users here now
Discussion of philosophy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I’m not sure how I confused you so much, or why you would find the request for a syllogized version of your sweeping theoretical claim surprising.
There is nothing confusing about someone as simple as you. You don't understand Chomsky, you don't understand LLM's, and you don't even really understand the conversation we're having now. You don't engage with the points people are actually making, just the ones you wish they made.
You're just a sad little jack off.
"this thread is a wild fucking ride"
-chompsky deepfake
"I smoke two joints after I smoke two joints, and then I smoke two more"
-gnome chimpskie
Premise 1 (UG): Human languages share an underlying structure.
Premise 2: LLM's can be trained to use human languages without the need for any underlying structure. Such an underlying structure is unnecessary for language acquisition.
Therefore, (UG) is false.
Not bad for a first attempt. Unfortunately, the argument above is assuming the consequent. Just because it is not necessary for something to be true, doesn't mean it isn't.
Let's try again.
Premise 1 (UG): Human languages share an underlying structure.
Premise 2: LLM's can be trained to use human languages without the need for any underlying structure. Such an underlying structure is unnecessary for language acquisition.
Premise 3: Human minds and brains operate in a manner relevantly similar to LLM's, at least when it comes to language acquisition.
Therefore, (UG) is false.
This argument is (almost) valid.
Of course, I would push back on both premise 2 and premise 3, which are difficult to believe and would require a lot of empirical evidence, but at least we’re clear about our claims.
The only thing that's clear about this conversation is that you engaged on a topic you know almost nothing about beyond some cursory googling. Go actually read Chomsky on this. Then read the follow ups. Then read Elman, and Fisher, and Vernes. I'd say to also read Sampson but he's a racist fuck nugget, so fuck that guy.
You should actually read Chomsky before commenting any further, because its very very clear you haven't. UG as a theory is relegated to pseudoscience, and Chomsky did a disservice to the entire field pushing theory that had been demonstrated to be false, repeatedly. Even that NYT op-ed was the same pushing of his wrong theories, which were baseless. His preeminence in the field prevented forced research into an unfounded and wrong direction for five decades.
That doesn’t sound like “thank you.” Regardless, feel free to adopt some version of the syllogism above, so that you can have more honest conversations with people in the future. Clarity is important if you’re interested in getting to the truth. It’s a shame we wasted so much time and now can no longer debate the actual premises of your dumb argument. That’s the fun part, after all.
Like I said, the only thing clear in this conversation is that you know actually nothing about anything in it. You don't know what Chomsky is saying because you haven't read him. You are stuck in this weird little self sucking loop where you think you are making a point, but you aren't. You don't know Chomsky, you don't know language, language theory, or computer science. You should just be apologizing for your ignorance and saying that you'll do the work to be taken seriously next time.
The only thing here that's a shame is you.
Your responses are so unhinged. Is your ego that fragile? What’s the point? Why not just learn from your mistake and do better next time?
Such a long post that could be summarized by "I don't like you".
Right or wrong, we had to wait 10 paragraphs for a concise version of your argument, which your opponent made for you. And, without the fog of obscure language, your point isn't the slam dunk you think it is, and that's driving you mad.
And now, you're just insulting them. Let me tell you, if there's someone that sounds like a pseudo-intellectual buffoon here, it's you.