News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning. Parent comment

Re:Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning by gizmo686 on Friday November 06, 2026 @09:14AM (#50392511)
What reason to we have to believe that LLMs are the closest model we have for how humans learn language.

We considered the hypothesis that humans are a general intelligence that figures language out by exposure. The evidence has consistently come back that that is not how humans actually work. A model where humans are hardwired with a lot of knowledge about language, then fill in the gaps based on exposure still appears to be far more accurate.

The only thing LLMs show is that it is possible to learn language de-novo.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning by NaiveEmpiricist on Friday November 06, 2026 @09:23AM (#50392626)
> The only thing LLMs show is that it is possible to learn language de-novo.

I agree, but would add, "But not under conditions that humans learn language."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning by emmelaich on Friday November 06, 2026 @01:36PM (#50396389)
I think it's far too early to say LLMs are not how humans learn language.

Regarding "hard-wired"; it's not if you consider that "hard-wiring" of an individual is the result of millions of years of evolution.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning by krackers on Saturday November 07, 2026 @12:42AM (#50401974)
[delayed]
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chomsky and the Two Cultures of Statistical Learning by jibalt on Saturday November 07, 2026 @12:36PM (#50406372)
People here aren't talking about results, they are talking about the form of the model. Thus the statement you quoted is about how, not about results or outcomes. And it was about how humans learn language, which isn't a result or outcome at all.
[ Parent | on HN ]