zlacker

> [...] I can't help but feel it's an a really old take [...]

To be fair the article is from two years ago, which when talking about LLMs in this age arguably does count as "old", maybe even "really old".

>>lxgr+(OP)
I think GPT-2 (2019) was already strong enough argument for possibility of modeling knowledge and language that Chomsky rejected.

>>lostms+L6
Though given that LLMs fundamentally can't know whether they know something or not (without a later pass of fine-tuning on what they should know) is a pretty good argument against them being good knowledge bases.

>>gf000+l9
No, it is not. In mathematical limit this applies to literally everything. In practice you are not going to store video compressed with a lossless codec, for example.

>>lostms+W51
Me forgetting/never having "recorded" what necklace the other person had during an important event is not at all similar to a statistical text-generation.

If they ask me the previous question I can retrospect/query my memory and tell 100% whether I know it or not - lossy compression aside. An LLM will just reply based on how likely a yes answer is with no regards to having that knowledge or not.

>>gf000+l81
You obviously forgot you previously heard about false memories and/or never thought that happens to you (would be v. ironic).