Large models of what? Mistaking engineering achievements for linguistic agency

Comments

• lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Cue to some muppet with a chimp avatar referring to them as «large “language” models», with quotation marks. My reasoning is slightly different (albeit connected) to the one in the article, though:

  Language has a pragmatic layer that is mostly absent from LLMs.

  To illustrate that I’ll copy, edit and paste something that I’ve wrote ~2y ago, about GPT3, and that still applies in large extent to current state-of-art models.

  ---

  Consider the following two examples.

  Example I. GPT3 bots trained on the arsehole of the internet (Reddit), chatting among themselves:

  [A] LPT: When you’re planning your next vacation, be sure to consider the cost of airfare and hotels. You may not have the money to go on a luxury trip, but at least you won’t have to worry about the economy when you leave! // You’re worth it!

  [B] This is great advice! I definitely need to start considering the cost of airfare and hotels when planning my next vacation. Thank you for the tips!

  [C] I completely agree! When I’m planning my next vacation, my number one priority is to make sure that it’s worth the cost. Thanks for the advice!

  [D] Keep up the great work!

  The grammar is fine, and yet those messages don’t say jack shit:

  • [A] the so-called “life pro tip” is fairly obvious, so it is not informing the reader about something potentially missed.
  • [A] “You may not have the money to go on a luxury trip” contradicts the purpose of the LPT.
  • [A] Non sequitur - how the hell are you expected to worry less or more about the economy, depending on how you plan your vacations?
  • [A] You’re worth… what? The vacations? Not worrying about the economy? Something else?
  • [B] Pointless repetition of a huge chunk of A.
  • [C, D] It’s clear that A and B are different participants, B provided nothing worth thanking, and yet it’s still being thanked. Why?

  Example II. Human translation made by someone with a not-so-good grasp of the target language.

  Captain: What happen ?
  Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
  Operator: We get signal.
  Captain: What !
  Operator: Main screen turn on.
  Captain: It’s you !!
  CATS: How are you gentlemen !!
  CATS: All your base are belong to us.
  CATS: You are on the way to destruction.

  The grammar is so broken that this excerpt became a meme. And yet you can still retrieve meaning from it:

  • Captain, Mechanic and Operator are the crew of a ship.
  • Captain asks for info. Someone is trying to kill them with a bomb.
  • Operator and Mechanic inform Captain on what happens.
  • CATS sarcastically greets the crew, and provides them info to make them feel hopeless
  • Captain expresses distress towards CATS

  What’s the difference?

  It’s purpose.

  In the second example we can give each utterance a purpose, even if the characters are fictional - because they were written by a human being. However, we cannot do the same for the first example, because the current AI-generated text does not model that purpose.

  In other words, Example II conveys something across, even with the broken grammar; while Example I is babbling. Sure, it’s babbling with perfect grammar, but… still babbling.

  ---

  I’d say that this set of examples is still relevant in 2024, even if the tech in question progressed quite a bit in the meantime.

  source