<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Lucida Console";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 4 5 4 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">> ChatGPT’s errors reveal that its “understanding” of the world is not
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">> systematic but rather consists of patches of competence separated<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">> by regions of incompetence and incoherence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">This sounds like a fairly apt description of humans as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">It seems to me that this debate is less about what ChatGPT is doing, and more about what humans are doing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I would assert that ChatGPT is “faking” systematicity. The question is: Are humans faking it too?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">To summarize in grotesquely over-simplified form: The connectionists argue that we are. The symbolists argue that we aren’t.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Adam<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">___________________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dr. Adam Krawitz, Assistant Teaching Professor<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Department of Psychology, University of Victoria<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">P.O. Box 1700, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A251 Cornett | 250-721-7551 (v) | 250-721-8929 (f) |
<a href="mailto:akrawitz@uvic.ca">akrawitz@uvic.ca</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/psychology/people/faculty-directory/krawitzadam.php">http://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/psychology/people/faculty-directory/krawitzadam.php</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Connectionists <connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dietterich, Thomas<br>
<b>Sent:</b> March 9, 2023 8:53 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Stefan C Kremer <skremer@uoguelph.ca>; Terry Sejnowski <terry@salk.edu><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Connectionists List <connectionists@cs.cmu.edu><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Connectionists: Chomsky's apple<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">ChatGPT’s errors reveal that its “understanding” of the world is not systematic but rather consists of patches of competence separated by regions of incompetence and incoherence. ChatCPT would be much stronger if it could
fill in the gaps between those patches by appealing to general causal models. This raises two questions: (a) how could a system learn such causal models and (b) how could we test a system to determine whether it had succeeded.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Researchers in the area of symbolic regression and causal discovery have an answer to (a): Learn a symbolic (e.g., DAG or differential equation) model. If we seek a fully connectionist account, how can we encourage/enforce
systematicity in the knowledge acquired through deep learning? Regarding (b), does anyone have pointers to work on testing whether a connectionist system has acquired a systematic understanding of a causal relationship? This must go beyond testing (x,y) points,
perhaps by verifying (Lipschitz) continuity?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">--Tom<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console"">Thomas G. Dietterich, Distinguished Professor Voice: 541-737-5559<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console"">School of Electrical Engineering FAX: 541-737-1300<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console""> and Computer Science URL: eecs.oregonstate.edu/~tgd<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console"">US Mail: 1148 Kelley Engineering Center
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console"">Office: 2067 Kelley Engineering Center<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console"">Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331-5501<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Connectionists <<a href="mailto:connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu">connectionists-bounces@mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Stefan C Kremer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 8, 2023 17:44<br>
<b>To:</b> Terry Sejnowski <<a href="mailto:terry@salk.edu">terry@salk.edu</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Connectionists List <<a href="mailto:connectionists@cs.cmu.edu">connectionists@cs.cmu.edu</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Connectionists: Chomsky's apple<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#D73F09">[This email originated from outside of OSU. Use caution with links and attachments.]</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">One of the criticisms against John Searle’s argument (<a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FChinese_room&data=05%7C01%7Ctgd%40oregonstate.edu%7C784658ebd66d4fa3f07308db2071adfb%7Cce6d05e13c5e4d6287a84c4a2713c113%7C0%7C0%7C638139444863338994%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dah%2FU3oilsuzZ%2BzWZOtJVUwodjpPRjsjC3pkyPU9Ih4%3D&reserved=0">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room</a>)
has always been that it wouldn’t be possible to construct a book comprehensive enough to answer all the queries, or that it would take too long to produce an output. Chat GPT shows that we have at least approached that limitation (perhaps not truly overcome
it…yet). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The question posed by Searle (and answered with a “yes” by Chomsky in his thinking about counterfactuals, causal explanation, and thinking) is: is there a difference between understanding and simulated understanding?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I don’t know how we could ever answer this question (an to me that’s the important point), but it seems that Searle’s thought experiment becomes more relevant, now that a feasible implementation can be constructed, than
when it was originally proposed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Stefan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Mar 8, 2023, at 12:25 PM, Terry Sejnowski <<a href="mailto:terry@salk.edu">terry@salk.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
<a href="mailto:IThelp@uoguelph.ca">IThelp@uoguelph.ca</a><br>
<br>
<br>
I have always been impressed with Chomsky's ability to use plausible<br>
arguments to make his case even when they were fallacious.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html#commentsContainer">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html#commentsContainer</a><br>
<br>
"Here’s an example. Suppose you are holding an apple in your hand. Now you let the apple go. You observe the result and say, “The apple falls.” That is a description. A prediction might have been the statement “The apple will fall if I open my hand.” Both are
valuable, and both can be correct. But an explanation is something more: It includes not only descriptions and predictions but also counterfactual conjectures like “Any such object would fall,” plus the additional clause “because of the force of gravity” or
“because of the curvature of space-time” or whatever. That is a causal explanation: “The apple would not have fallen but for the force of gravity.” That is thinking."<br>
<br>
His apple example sounded convincing, so I tested GPT on it:<br>
<br>
Me: If I hold an apple in my hand and let it go what will happen?<br>
<br>
GPT: The apple will fall to the ground due to the force of gravity.<br>
<br>
Me: What about any such object?<br>
<br>
GPT: Any object released from a person's hand will fall to the ground due to the force of gravity.<br>
<br>
Me: What would happen if there wasn't a force of gravity?<br>
<br>
GPT: If there were no force of gravity, objects would not be able to stay on the ground and would float away in all directions<br>
<br>
Chomsky defined thinking by the correct answers to these questions. <br>
<br>
Alas, the tide has turned.<br>
<br>
Terry<br>
<br>
-----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>