Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47

Score 83

@chrmanning @hamandcheese I see the failure of LLMs to do literally anything with reliability as an argument in the opposite direction.

3/27/2024, 7:01:18 PM

In reply to:

Christopher Manning

@chrmanning

642d

Re-upping a piece from last year by @hamandcheese on LLMs and language meaning:

“I see the success of LLMs as vindicating the use theory of meaning, especially when contrasted with the failure of symbolic approaches to natural language processing.”

https://www.secondbest.ca/p/were…

The statement is a critical response to an article discussing the success of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their implications for language meaning theories. The tone is skeptical, and the intent is to challenge the view presented in the article. The content is a counter-argument to the claim that LLMs vindicate the use theory of meaning.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not intend to harm but to provide a counterpoint in a technical debate. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement lacks a tone of empathy or compassion, as it is a straightforward critique, but it does not promote misunderstanding or lack of compassion.
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement engages in constructive criticism without personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]