zlacker

Ok then .. what makes that a negative? You're describing a human limitation and a strength of LLMs

>>paulsu+(OP)
It's not a negative, it's just not what humans do, which is Chomsky's (a person studying what humans do) point.

As I said in another comment this whole dispute would be put to bed if people understood that they don't care about what humans do (and that Chomsky does).

>>foobar+z1
Suggestion for you then, in your first response you would have been clearer to say "The reason Chomsky seems like such a retard here, is because he clings to irrelevant nonsense"

It's completely unremarkable that humans are unable to learn certain languages, and soon it will be unremarkable when humans have no cognitive edge over machines.

Response: Science? "Ancient Linguistics" would more accurately describe Chomsky's field of study and its utility

>>paulsu+C3
> Suggestion for you then, in your first response you would have been clearer to say "The reason Chomsky seems like such a retard here, is because he clings to irrelevant nonsense"

If science is irrelevant to you it's you who should have recognized this before spouting off.