zlacker

>>amrrs+(OP)
Human language is far from perfect as a cognitive tool but still serves us well because it is not foundational. We use it both for communication and some reasoning/planning as a high level layer.

I strongly believe that human language is too weak (vague, inconsistent, not expressive enough etc.) to replace interactions with the world as a basis to build strong cognition.

We're easily fooled by the results of LLM/LRM models because we typically use language fluency and knowledge retrieval as a proxy benchmark for intelligence among our peers.

>>stephc+vz1
Human language is more powerful than its surface syntax or semantics: it carries meaning beyond formal correctness. We often communicate effectively even with grammatically broken sentences, using jokes, metaphors, or emotionally charged expressions. This richness makes language a uniquely human cognitive layer, shaped by context, culture, and shared experience. While it's not foundational in the same way as sensorimotor interaction, it is far more than just a high-level communication tool.

>>wslh+SU1
I agree that language is even more useful as a cognitive tool than as a communication medium.

But that is not my point. The map is not the territory, and this map (language) is too poor to build something that is going to give more than what it was fed with.