Tag: Language

Posted on

(Featured) Against AI Understanding and Sentience: Large Language Models, Meaning, and the Patterns of Human Language Use

Against AI Understanding and Sentience: Large Language Models, Meaning, and the Patterns of Human Language Use

Christoph Durt, Thomas Fuchs, and Tom Froese investigate the astonishing capacities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to mimic human-like responses. They begin by acknowledging the unprecedented feats of these models, particularly GPT-3, which have led some to assert that they possess common-sense reasoning and even sentience. They caution, however, that these claims often overlook the instances where LLMs fail to produce sensical responses. Even as the models evolve and mitigate some of these limitations, the authors urge circumspection regarding the attribution of understanding and sentience to these systems.

The authors argue that the progress of LLMs invites a reassessment of long-standing philosophical debates about the limits of AI. The authors challenge the view, expressed by philosophers such as Hubertus Dreyfus, that AI is inherently incapable of understanding meaning. Given the emergent linguistic capabilities of these models, they query whether these advancements warrant attributing understanding to the computational system. Contrary to Dreyfus’s assertion that any formal system cannot be directly sensitive to the relevance of its situation, the authors propose that LLMs seem to exhibit this sensitivity in a pragmatic sense.

While the article explores the philosophical debates surrounding AI understanding and sentience, it does not definitively conclude whether LLMs truly understand or are sentient. The authors suggest that the human-like behaviour exhibited by these models may lead to the inference of a human-like mind. However, they argue that more nuanced and empirically informed positions are required. The authors further advocate for a more comprehensive assessment of LLM output, rather than relying on selective instances of impressive performance.

This research brings into focus the broader philosophical implications of our interaction with AI, particularly the ontological and epistemological assumptions we make when interacting with LLMs. The debate surrounding AI sentience and understanding illuminates the complexities inherent in defining consciousness and understanding, a philosophical quandary that dates back to Descartes and beyond. It forces us to interrogate the nature of understanding – is it a purely human phenomenon, or can it be replicated, even surpassed, by silicon-based entities? Moreover, it challenges our anthropocentric views of cognition and compels us to consider alternate forms of intelligence and understanding.

Looking forward, the study of AI and philosophy would benefit from an even deeper exploration of these questions. More empirical research is needed to understand the extent and limitations of LLMs’ capacities. Concurrently, philosophical inquiry can help define and refine the metrics by which we measure AI understanding and sentience. As we delve further into the AI era, it is crucial that we continue to scrutinize and challenge our assumptions about AI capabilities, not only to enhance our technological advancements but also to enrich our philosophical understanding of the world.

Abstract

Large language models such as ChatGPT are deep learning architectures trained on immense quantities of text. Their capabilities of producing human-like text are often attributed either to mental capacities or the modeling of such capacities. This paper argues, to the contrary, that because much of meaning is embedded in common patterns of language use, LLMs can model the statistical contours of these usage patterns. We agree with distributional semantics that the statistical relations of a text corpus reflect meaning, but only part of it. Written words are only one part of language use, although an important one as it scaffolds our interactions and mental life. In human language production, preconscious anticipatory processes interact with conscious experience. Human language use constitutes and makes use of given patterns and at the same time constantly rearranges them in a way we compare to the creation of a collage. LLMs do not model sentience or other mental capacities of humans but the common patterns in public language use, clichés and biases included. They thereby highlight the surprising extent to which human language use gives rise to and is guided by patterns.

Against AI Understanding and Sentience: Large Language Models, Meaning, and the Patterns of Human Language Use
Posted on

(Featured) A Loosely Wittgensteinian Conception of the Linguistic Understanding of Large Language Models like BERT, GPT-3, and ChatGPT

A Loosely Wittgensteinian Conception of the Linguistic Understanding of Large Language Models like BERT, GPT-3, and ChatGPT

Reto Gubelmann articulates a “loosely Wittgensteinian” conception of linguistic understanding, particularly in the context of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models such as BERT, GPT-3, and ChatGPT. The author posits that these transformer-based natural language processing (NNLP) models are closing in on the capacity to genuinely understand language, a claim that is buttressed by both empirical and conceptual arguments. The empirical basis is grounded on the remarkable performance of these AI models on benchmarks like GLUE and SuperGLUE, which evaluate them on tasks that, in a human context, would necessitate a deep understanding of language, such as answering questions about a text, summarizing text, and discerning logical relationships between statements. The conceptual underpinnings of this claim draw upon the works of Glock, Taylor, and Wittgenstein to argue that linguistic understanding, a form of intelligence, is marked by flexibility in handling new tasks and novel inputs, as well as the capability to autonomously adapt to new tasks​​.

The article further navigates through the terrain of philosophical objections to the idea that AI can understand language. The author counters objections raised by Searle, Bender, Koller, Davidson, and Nagel, among others, arguing that understanding language does not necessitate any esoteric or mysterious component such as qualia. Rather, it is dependent on the competencies of the AI model, specifically its autonomous adaptability and performance in a wide array of linguistic tasks in diverse settings. By this definition, the author contends that current transformer-based NNLP models are inching closer to meeting the criteria for linguistic understanding​​.

The author also provides a succinct yet comprehensive overview of the evolution of AI models, from the era of “Good Old-Fashioned AI” (GOFAI), which relied on explicit rules and logical processing, to the emergence of neural network models or connectionist AI, which represent a fundamentally different approach to designing intelligent systems. The distinguishing feature of these neural network models, such as the transformer-based models under discussion, is their learning-based approach, which enables them to adapt to new tasks and exhibit flexibility in the face of novel inputs​​.

Embedding these discussions within broader philosophical issues, the article provides a fruitful platform for exploring the nature of intelligence, understanding, and language. The examination of whether or not AI models can understand language opens up questions about the definition of understanding and the conditions that must be met to ascribe understanding to a being. This interrogation is undergirded by a Wittgensteinian perspective, which has profound implications for our understanding of language, mind, and the possibilities of AI. It also prompts us to reconsider the boundaries we draw between human and machine intelligence.

Future research should continue to explore these Wittgensteinian conceptions of linguistic understanding, particularly as AI models continue to evolve and improve. More empirical work could be conducted to test the adaptability and flexibility of AI models in novel linguistic situations, providing more robust evidence for or against their capacity to understand language. Furthermore, the philosophical debate concerning language understanding in AI should continue to be pushed forward, with deeper explorations of the arguments against AI understanding and the development of new philosophical frameworks that can accommodate the rapidly advancing capabilities of AI. As this field advances, interdisciplinary collaboration between AI researchers, linguists, and philosophers will be vital in order to fully grasp the implications of these transformative technologies.

Abstract

In this article, I develop a loosely Wittgensteinian conception of what it takes for a being, including an AI system, to understand language, and I suggest that current state of the art systems are closer to fulfilling these requirements than one might think. Developing and defending this claim has both empirical and conceptual aspects. The conceptual aspects concern the criteria that are reasonably applied when judging whether some being understands language; the empirical aspects concern the question whether a given being fulfills these criteria. On the conceptual side, the article builds on Glock’s concept of intelligence, Taylor’s conception of intrinsic rightness as well as Wittgenstein’s rule-following considerations. On the empirical side, it is argued that current transformer-based NNLP models, such as BERT and GPT-3 come close to fulfilling these criteria.

A Loosely Wittgensteinian Conception of the Linguistic Understanding of Large Language Models like BERT, GPT-3, and ChatGPT