zlacker

>>mef+(OP)
The level of intellectual engagement with Chomsky's ideas in the comments here is shockingly low. Surely, we are capable of holding these two thoughts: one, that the facility of LLMs is fantastic and useful, and two, that the major breakthroughs of AI this decade have not, at least so far, substantially deepened our understanding of our own intelligence and its constitution.

That may change, particularly if the intelligence of LLMs proves to be analogous to our own in some deep way—a point that is still very much undecided. However, if the similarities are there, so is the potential for knowledge. We have a complete mechanical understanding of LLMs and can pry apart their structure, which we cannot yet do with the brain. And some of the smartest people in the world are engaged in making LLMs smaller and more efficient; it seems possible that the push for miniaturization will rediscover some tricks also discovered by the blind watchmaker. But these things are not a given.

>>atdt+SZ
Chompsky's central criticism of LLMs is that they can learn impossible languages just as easily as they learn possible languages. He refers to this repeatedly in the linked interview. Therefore, they cannot teach us about our own intelligence.

However, a paper published last year (Mission: Impossible Language Models, Kallini et al.) proved that LLMs do NOT learn impossible languages as easily as they learn possible languages. This undermines everything that Chompsky says about LLMs in the linked interview.

>>xron+IT1
The authors of that paper misunderstand what "impossible languages" refers to. It doesn't refer to any language a human can't learn. It refers to computationally simple plausible alternative languages that humans can't learn, in particular linear-order (non-hierarchical structure) languages.