Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language

Re:Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language by shaunxcode on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @02:53PM (#36315026)

Thank you! It is like arguing that a human engaging in the creation of a landscape portrait using the traditional method of oil painting has been "refuted" by a computer generating vector graphics from statistical descriptions of the same scene. Both yield art but they are clearly different in interesting ways. Neither refutes or outmodes the other. Or maybe I'm wrong and actually trees have refuted mushrooms!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language by janalsncm on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @02:58PM (#36315109)

Since large fungi came first, maybe trees have refuted the mushrooms?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototaxites

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language by shaunxcode on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @04:57PM (#36317183)

That is my point though: the notion of one plant refuting another is absurd if they both still thrive. Likewise the underpinnings of how LLMs work does not refute the conceptual framework of universal grammar. Especially as refutation means to disprove (not improve, increment, evolve or augment). One more analogy: jiu jitsu does not refute aikido even if it is better in an MMA context. When reaching for refutation prefer synthesis.

[ Parent | on HN ]