Connectionists: Chomsky's apple

[Terry Sejnowski]

I have always been impressed with Chomsky's ability to use plausible
arguments to make his case even when they were fallacious.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html#commentsContainer

"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."

His apple example sounded convincing, so I tested GPT on it:

Me:  If I hold an apple in my hand and let it go what will happen?

GPT:  The apple will fall to the ground due to the force of gravity.

Me: What about any such object?

GPT: Any object released from a person's hand will fall to the ground due to the force of gravity.

Me:  What would happen if there wasn't a force of gravity?

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

Chomsky defined thinking by the correct answers to these questions. 

Alas, the tide has turned.

Terry

-----