zlacker

>>mef+(OP)
Chomsky is always saying that LLMs and such can only imitate, not understand language. But I wonder if there is a degree of sophistication at which he would concede these machines exceed "imitation". If his point is that LLMs arrive at language in a way different than humans... great. But I'm not sure how he can argue that some kind of extremely sophisticated understanding of natural language is not embedded in these models in a way that, at this point, exceeds the average human. In all fairness, this was written in 2023, but given his longstanding stubbornness on this topic, I doubt it would make a difference.

>>next_x+Y2
I guess it's because LLM does not understand the meaning as you understand what you read or thought. LLMs are machines that modulate hierarchical positions, ordering the placement of a-signifying sign without a clue of the meaning of what they ordered (that's why machine can hallucinate :they don't have a sense of what they express)