Dan, I wanted to comment briefly on a sentence from your earlier posting: "ChatGPT simply and conclusively shows that there is no need for any innate learning module in the brain to learn language."
1- ChatGPT did not evolve naturally, but was developed by humans who certainly do understand how language works. Those humans fed ChatGPT vast amounts of carefully curated (not random) examples of human language and images. Evidence that digital computers and software can learn language on their own is therefore absent. To the extent ChatGPT "learns" language, its success depends upon the *a priori element provided by humans. This a priori element is the equivalent of an "innate" potential or quality. 2- ChatGPT is a tool. Tools do not act on their own, or learn on their own. They have no intentions, no interests, no responsibilities. They are directed by their users/operators. Without direction, they learn nothing. 3- It is well known that ChatGPT frequently commits gross/obvious errors, and those gross errors are pragmatic evidence that it has failed at learning the language. Pattern recognition & matching may be a better description of what it does. (Does ChatGPT ever invent new words?) 4- According to press reports, ChatGPT depends upon the use (scanning) of *stolen articles, books, etc. So the developers of ChatGPT do not have a morality/ethics algorithm, and neither does ChatGPT. This correspondence is direct evidence that the potentials/qualities of ChatGPT are the *same as the potentials/qualities provided by its developers/users. That correspondence principle applies to ChatGPT's language potentials, too (I believe). I agree with your closing sentence that ChatGPT is inferring from signs, which you refer to as Peircean, but do not perceive that it is inferring from the *meaning of signs, which reflect pragmatic objectives. It appears that ChatGPT infers from the uses of signs in a multitude of settings -- many of which represent unsuccessful, failed, or irrelevant efforts. It seems that Peircean inferences about language would revolve around pragmatic meanings. Thanks Tom Wyrick . On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:37 PM Dan Everett <[email protected]> wrote: > ChatGPT simply and conclusively shows that there is no need for any innate > learning module in the brain to learn language. Here is the paper on it > that states this best. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007180 > > From a Peircean perspective, it is important to realize that this works by > inference over signs. > > Dan > > On Apr 19, 2023, at 12:58 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan, list, > > ok, so it is like I wrote "or it is so, that ChatGPT is somehow referred > to universal logic as well, builds its linguistic competence up from there, > and so can skip the human grammar-module". But that neither is witchcraft, > nor does it say, that there is no human-genetic grammar-module. And I too > hope with the Linguist, that we dont have to fear ChatGPT more than we have > to fear a refrigerator. > > Best > Helmut > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
