[exe34]

> Language models aren't world models for the same reason languages aren't world models. > Symbols, by definition, only represent a thing. They are not the same as the thing. The map is not the territory, the description is not the described, you can't get wet in the word "water".

There is a lot of negatives in there, but I feel like it boils down to a model of a thing is not the thing. Well duh. It's a model. A map is a model.

[bithive123]

Right. It's a dead thing that has no independent meaning. It doesn't even exist as a thing except conceputally. The referent is not even another dead thing, but a reality that appears nowhere in the map itself. It may have certain limited usefulness in the practical realm, but expecting it to lead to new insights ignores the fact that it's fundamentally an abstraction of the real, not in relationship to it.

[exe34]

> but expecting it to lead to new insights ignores the fact that it's fundamentally an abstraction of the real, not in relationship to it.

Where do humans get new insights from?

[bithive123]

Generally the experience of insight is prior to any discursive expression. We put our insights in terms of words, they do not arise as such.

[exe34]

Like VLMs then.