undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfoobarqux3y ago0 comments

LLMs haven't "learned" syntax, that's the point. It doesn't matter if you just want to predict syntax (engineering) only if you want to understand the human language faculty (science) and nearly no one is interested in the latter.

0 comments

lostmsu3y ago

The fact that you don't understand how GPT models language does not make it less of a model. It did learn the syntax, you are just incapable to grasp the formula it represents.

foobarquxOP3y ago

> The fact that you don't understand how GPT models language does not make it less of a model. It did learn the syntax, you are just incapable to grasp the formula it represents.

The whole point of science is understanding and LLMs don't provide understanding of how human language works.

lostmsu3y ago

This is a pseudophilosophical mumbo-jumbo. It does not really address the comment you replied to, because it does not contradict any of the following statements (from which my original point trivially follows):

1. Chomsky claimed syntax can't be modeled statistically.

2. GPT is a nearly perfect statistical model of syntax.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lostmsu3y ago

The fact that you don't understand how GPT models language does not make it less of a model. It did learn the syntax, you are just incapable to grasp the formula it represents.

foobarquxOP3y ago

> The fact that you don't understand how GPT models language does not make it less of a model. It did learn the syntax, you are just incapable to grasp the formula it represents.

The whole point of science is understanding and LLMs don't provide understanding of how human language works.

lostmsu3y ago

1. Chomsky claimed syntax can't be modeled statistically.

2. GPT is a nearly perfect statistical model of syntax.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse