Large Models of What? Mistaking Engineering Achievements for Human Linguistic Agency

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08790v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:06:01 GMT
• Title: Large Models of What? Mistaking Engineering Achievements for Human Linguistic Agency
• Authors: Abeba Birhane, Marek McGann,
• Abstract summary: We argue that claims regarding linguistic capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are based on at least two unfounded assumptions. Language completeness assumes that a distinct and complete thing such as a natural language' exists. The assumption of data completeness relies on the belief that a language can be quantified and wholly captured by data.
• Score: 0.11510009152620666
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper we argue that key, often sensational and misleading, claims regarding linguistic capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are based on at least two unfounded assumptions; the assumption of language completeness and the assumption of data completeness. Language completeness assumes that a distinct and complete thing such as `a natural language' exists, the essential characteristics of which can be effectively and comprehensively modelled by an LLM. The assumption of data completeness relies on the belief that a language can be quantified and wholly captured by data. Work within the enactive approach to cognitive science makes clear that, rather than a distinct and complete thing, language is a means or way of acting. Languaging is not the kind of thing that can admit of a complete or comprehensive modelling. From an enactive perspective we identify three key characteristics of enacted language; embodiment, participation, and precariousness, that are absent in LLMs, and likely incompatible in principle with current architectures. We argue that these absences imply that LLMs are not now and cannot in their present form be linguistic agents the way humans are. We illustrate the point in particular through the phenomenon of `algospeak', a recently described pattern of high stakes human language activity in heavily controlled online environments. On the basis of these points, we conclude that sensational and misleading claims about LLM agency and capabilities emerge from a deep misconception of both what human language is and what LLMs are.

Related papers

• From Babbling to Fluency: Evaluating the Evolution of Language Models in Terms of Human Language Acquisition [6.617999710257379]
  We propose a three-stage framework to assess the abilities of LMs. We evaluate the generative capacities of LMs using methods from linguistic research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T06:31:49Z)
• Lens: Rethinking Multilingual Enhancement for Large Language Models [70.85065197789639]
  Lens is a novel approach to enhance multilingual capabilities of large language models (LLMs) It operates by manipulating the hidden representations within the language-agnostic and language-specific subspaces from top layers of LLMs. It achieves superior results with much fewer computational resources compared to existing post-training approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T08:51:30Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• Language Models Don't Learn the Physical Manifestation of Language [0.3529736140137004]
  We argue that language-only models don't learn the physical manifestation of language. We present an empirical investigation of visual-auditory properties of language through a series of tasks, termed H-Test.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T17:52:24Z)
• How Proficient Are Large Language Models in Formal Languages? An In-Depth Insight for Knowledge Base Question Answering [52.86931192259096]
  Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA) aims to answer natural language questions based on facts in knowledge bases. Recent works leverage the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for logical form generation to improve performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T09:27:50Z)
• Meaning and understanding in large language models [0.0]
  Recent developments in the generative large language models (LLMs) of artificial intelligence have led to the belief that traditional philosophical assumptions about machine understanding of language need to be revised. This article critically evaluates the prevailing tendency to regard machine language performance as mere syntactic manipulation and the simulation of understanding, which is only partial and very shallow, without sufficient referential grounding in the world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T14:06:14Z)
• The Quo Vadis of the Relationship between Language and Large Language Models [3.10770247120758]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have come to encourage the adoption of LLMs as scientific models of language. We identify the most important theoretical and empirical risks brought about by the adoption of scientific models that lack transparency. We conclude that, at their current stage of development, LLMs hardly offer any explanations for language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T10:54:24Z)
• Limits for Learning with Language Models [4.20859414811553]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) are unable to learn concepts beyond the first level of the Borel Hierarchy. LLMs will continue to operate without formal guarantees on tasks that require entailments and deep linguistic understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T12:11:31Z)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)
• Transparency Helps Reveal When Language Models Learn Meaning [71.96920839263457]
  Our systematic experiments with synthetic data reveal that, with languages where all expressions have context-independent denotations, both autoregressive and masked language models learn to emulate semantic relations between expressions. Turning to natural language, our experiments with a specific phenomenon -- referential opacity -- add to the growing body of evidence that current language models do not well-represent natural language semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T02:35:19Z)
• Shortcut Learning of Large Language Models in Natural Language Understanding [119.45683008451698]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance on a series of natural language understanding tasks. They might rely on dataset bias and artifacts as shortcuts for prediction. This has significantly affected their generalizability and adversarial robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-25T03:51:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.