Connectionists: Chomsky's apple

Prof Leslie Smith l.s.smith at cs.stir.ac.uk
Fri Mar 10 17:45:22 EST 2023


Dear all:

I'm beginning to think that we are looking at this from the wrong end: the
issue isn't about what/whether ChatGPT understands, but about what we mean
by "understanding" in a human or an animal, and what we might mean by
understanding in a machine.

If I say: I'll drive to London, it's clear that (a) I have access to a car
(b) I can drive etc. But I may or may not understand how the car works. I
may or may not understand the nature of the frictional forces that allow
the wheels to move the car. I may or may not understand the chemistry that
allows she internal combustion engine/battery to operate. I (and
presumably the person I am talking to) has a model of understanding of
driving cars that suffices for our needs.

In other words, out "understanding" relates to the activities we want to
do, activities that are about our operation/interaction in our
environment. So we  often use simple models that  suffice for our
activities and interactions. Our understanding is systematic, but may well
be wrong, or (more likely) just sufficient for our purposes (I know I need
to put petrol/gas in the car, or I need to charge the battery) rather than
complete (*).

Our understanding clearly works entirely differently from ChatGPT,  (and I
agree with Richard Loosemore that ascribing a human sort of understanding 
to ChatGPT is not appropriate).
But if we want to use the same terms to describe machines and humans, we
should really start by deciding what these terms mean when applied to
humans.

(*) In fact out models are never complete: they rely on concepts like
solidity, fluidity, electrical current, gravity, light, etc., concepts
that we understand sufficiently for everyday usage. Completeness would
imply a full physics that went down to subatomic/quantum levels!

Adam Krawitz wrote:
>
>> 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.
>

-- 
Prof Leslie Smith (Emeritus)
Computing Science & Mathematics,
University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA
Scotland, UK
Tel +44 1786 467435
Web: http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~lss
Blog: http://lestheprof.com



More information about the Connectionists mailing list