Re:Do large language models understand us?
by mistermann on Monday December 20, 2021 @04:09PM
(#29630318)
> Well, I would say that in your thought experiment it's actually the culture that could produce a substantial difference in cognition, whereas the langauge is merely a consequence of that culture.
Regardless of whether the language is a consequence of the culture (say, they imported it, or had it imposed upon them), how might one determine with accuracy that consistently disciplined speaking (which is preceded by cognition) has no causal dependence on speaking this substantially more strict language itself?
> However, you will not gain this ability or habit just by learning the langauge.
You will not necessarily gain this ability just by learning it, agreed - but using it on a daily basis is another matter.
> In fact, your langauge can even express that same thing today.
It can express it, in some fashion (typically with clumsy, annoying phrases and qualifiers that make people angry, rather than dedicated, socially normal words), but whether one actually does it on a regular basis is another matter.
There are various differences between someone who studied 3 months of 1 hour per week of Jiu Jitsu (or math, physics, etc) classes, and someone who practiced it for several hours a day from an early age.
Even in simple scenarios it can be extremely difficult to accurately predict what the consequences of something are, and language, cognition, and culture are not exactly simple. And, from a scientific/epistemic perspective, one should always keep in mind that an absence of evidence is not proof of absence....which brings to mind another thought experiment that is different but similar: what might a society be like where epistemology and logic are considered crucially valuable skills, and were taught from Grade 1 through 12 to all children, and being incorrect or even speaking epistemically unsoundly were considered seriously shameful? Might it be possible that one would notice anything substantially different in people who were raised in such a culture (and, what might be some differences we might see)? I would be quite shocked if it had no effect.
Regardless of whether the language is a consequence of the culture (say, they imported it, or had it imposed upon them), how might one determine with accuracy that consistently disciplined speaking (which is preceded by cognition) has no causal dependence on speaking this substantially more strict language itself?
> However, you will not gain this ability or habit just by learning the langauge.
You will not necessarily gain this ability just by learning it, agreed - but using it on a daily basis is another matter.
> In fact, your langauge can even express that same thing today.
It can express it, in some fashion (typically with clumsy, annoying phrases and qualifiers that make people angry, rather than dedicated, socially normal words), but whether one actually does it on a regular basis is another matter.
There are various differences between someone who studied 3 months of 1 hour per week of Jiu Jitsu (or math, physics, etc) classes, and someone who practiced it for several hours a day from an early age.
Even in simple scenarios it can be extremely difficult to accurately predict what the consequences of something are, and language, cognition, and culture are not exactly simple. And, from a scientific/epistemic perspective, one should always keep in mind that an absence of evidence is not proof of absence....which brings to mind another thought experiment that is different but similar: what might a society be like where epistemology and logic are considered crucially valuable skills, and were taught from Grade 1 through 12 to all children, and being incorrect or even speaking epistemically unsoundly were considered seriously shameful? Might it be possible that one would notice anything substantially different in people who were raised in such a culture (and, what might be some differences we might see)? I would be quite shocked if it had no effect.