Now this is interesting! I've always been very dubious about Chomsky's innateness theories; does show anything interesting about whether particular innate structures are, or more likely are not, actually needed to learn human language?

Even if they aren't needed, there could still be a claim that humans do have them and it shows in the way we learn language, which one could argue is different than the way an LLM does; but this is still an interesting start.

tehrantimes.com/news/483187/Ex

@ceoln
Here’s a survey article on large language models and how they undermine Chomsky’s approach to language: lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/007180

It’s a good survey article, but I read it with a grain of salt, and want to spend time with the bibliography.

Here’s another good survey article on the 60-year feud between generative linguistics and neural net based theories of how the mind works:

sites.socsci.uci.edu/~lpearl/c

Follow

@lain_7
"Note that this specific example was not in the model’s training set—there is no
possibility that Trump understands prime numbers." 😂

Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.