|
|
|
|
|
|
by joshuamorton
2655 days ago
|
|
|
>Why do I need to show you my representation to convince you I possess human understanding of language? Why not? What makes you special? You're giving humans a double standard here. It's not like we have a particularly clear understanding of the human model of cognition. And since we're venturing further into the philosophical, I feel safe making the assertion that no, I, a priori, have no reason to believe that you have more understanding of language than a model. I'm only interacting with you online. For all I know, you are a computer program. Why should I trust you and hold you to a different standard than I would any other model? |
|
|
There is no double standard and the matter is not philosophical. We know humans to be able to understand language- we do not need to prove it in any way, including by examining our representation of meaning in language.
We don't know that statistical language models have an understanding of language, it's a very strong assumption to make that they do, and it must be justified with equally strong evidence. Their internal structure is available for inspection, therefore if they are capable of understanding language this understanding should have a concrete reprsentation that we can identify. If we can't, then they don't have anything like "understanding".
>> Why should I trust you and hold you to a different standard than I would any other model?
Assuming that I'm not a model is a reasonable assumption with a very high probability of being true and the simplest explanation for my participation in this thread.