zlacker

[return to "Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for (2023)"]
1. 0xDEAF+g6[view] [source] 2025-05-25 17:56:44
>>mef+(OP)
I confess my opinion of Noam Chomsky dropped a lot from reading this interview. The way he set up a "Tom Jones" strawman and kept dismissing positions using language like "we'd laugh", "total absurdity", etc. was really disappointing. I always assumed that academics were only like that on reddit, and in real life they actually made a serious effort at rigorous argument, avoiding logical fallacies and the like. Yet here is Chomsky addressing a lay audience that has no linguistics background, and instead of even attempting to summarize the arguments for his position, he simply asserts that opposing views are risible with little supporting argument. I expected much more from a big-name scholar.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

◧◩
2. foobar+Tb[view] [source] 2025-05-25 18:38:52
>>0xDEAF+g6
"Tom Jones" isn't a strawman, Chomsky is addressing an actual argument in a published paper from Steven Piantadosi. He's using a pseudonym to be polite and not call him out by name.

> instead of even attempting to summarize the arguments for his position..

He makes a very clear, simple argument, accessible to any layperson who can read. If you are studying insects what you are interested in is how insects do it not what other mechanisms you can come up with to "beat" insects. This isn't complicated.

◧◩◪
3. lostms+hf[view] [source] 2025-05-25 19:03:05
>>foobar+Tb
That's understandable but irrelevant. Only a few people have major interest in how humans think exactly. But nearly everyone is hang on the question if the LLMs could think better.
◧◩◪◨
4. foobar+Xi[view] [source] 2025-05-25 19:29:39
>>lostms+hf
It's not irrelevant, it's the core of the disconnect: The problem is that everyone is arguing as if they passionately care about how humans work when, as you say, they don't care at all.

People should just recognize, as you have done, that they don't actually care about how the human language faculty works. It's baffling that they instead choose to make absurd arguments to defend fields they don't care one way or another about.

When Chomsky says that LLMs aren't how the human faculty works it would be so easy to tell the truth and say "I don't care how the human language faculty works" and everyone can go focus on the things they are interested in, just as it would be easy for a GPS designer to say "I don't care how insect navigation works".

There is no problem as long as you don't pretend to be caring about (this aspect of) science.

[go to top]