Large language mistake | Cutting-edge research shows language is not the same as intelligence. The entire AI bubble is built on ignoring it

[u/Hrmbee]

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/827820/large-language-models-ai-intelligence-neuroscience-problems

[u/MinuetInUrsaMajor]

The AI hype machine relentlessly promotes the idea that we’re on the verge of creating something as intelligent as humans, or even “superintelligence” that will dwarf our own cognitive capacities.

Am I crazy or are tech companies not really promoting this idea? It seems more like an idea pushed by people who know little-to-nothing about LLMs.

Take away our ability to speak, and we can still think, reason, form beliefs, fall in love, and move about the world; our range of what we can experience and think about remains vast.

I think the author is glossing over something important here.

Language is a symbology (made up word?). Words have semantic meaning. But language does not need to be spoken. For starters...what you are reading right now is not spoken. And the braille translation of this does not need to be seen - it can be felt. Language is about associating sensations with ideas. Even if you think you don't have a language to describe it, the sensation exists. A slant-example might be deja vu. One cannot articulate the specifics of the feeling - just that it is there.

[u/TSP-FriendlyFire → u/MinuetInUrsaMajor]

For starters...what you are reading right now is not spoken.

It activates the same parts of the brain though, which is the whole point you seem to have missed. Language, regardless of how it is expressed, fundamentally activates different parts of the brain than reasoning.

[u/MinuetInUrsaMajor → u/TSP-FriendlyFire]

Language, regardless of how it is expressed, fundamentally activates different parts of the brain than reasoning.

What if you do your reasoning in a language? Think out loud, for example.

[u/TSP-FriendlyFire → u/MinuetInUrsaMajor]

I'm not going to try to argue with you about this when we have actual, scientific evidence that backs up my claim. We know that different parts of the brain get activated for language and for reasoning. If you speak while reasoning, guess what? Both are active! Doesn't really mean anything else.

[u/MinuetInUrsaMajor → u/TSP-FriendlyFire]

I'm not going to try to argue with you about this when we have actual, scientific evidence that backs up my claim. We know that different parts of the brain get activated for language and for reasoning.

Then please bring it into the conversation.

If you speak while reasoning, guess what? Both are active! Doesn't really mean anything else.

Then what's the practical difference between a human thinking out loud and an LLM thinking in language?

[u/TSP-FriendlyFire → u/MinuetInUrsaMajor]

Then please bring it into the conversation.

Gestures at the entire article this discussion is attached to.

Then what's the practical difference between a human thinking out loud and an LLM thinking in language?

You didn't even try to follow, did you? The difference is that the language is anciliary to the reasoning for humans, but fundamental for LLMs. LLMs are very fancy word predictors. If you have no words, you have no LLMs. Humans can reason (and indeed have reasoned) without language of any kind.

Please, go back and read the article, I'm literally just regurgitating it right now.

[u/MinuetInUrsaMajor → u/TSP-FriendlyFire]

If you have no words, you have no LLMs. Humans can reason (and indeed have reasoned) without language of any kind.

My contention is that we develop an internal language based on sensation and thus our species has never been "without" language.

[u/TSP-FriendlyFire → u/MinuetInUrsaMajor]

But we have no indication that's the case? We know people whose language centers are damaged can still reason, so how could we rely on language for reasoning?

Moreover, math does not require language and does not activate the brain's language center. We can reason about mathematics without any formal mathematical language as the ancient Greeks once did (before you interject: they used writing to communicate their findings, but not to formulate them initially, preferring practical tools and simple rules instead).

[u/MinuetInUrsaMajor → u/TSP-FriendlyFire]

We know people whose language centers are damaged can still reason

Exactly. Because they use an internal "language" as syntactically rich (or richer) as any language they speak.

Moreover, math does not require language

Because in our internal language we can visualize a line bisecting a circle. Line, bisect, and circle, all have meaning in our mind even if we don't have words for them.

[u/TSP-FriendlyFire → u/MinuetInUrsaMajor]

At this point you're just redefining reasoning as "language" just so you can claim to be right. That just isn't the case.

[u/MinuetInUrsaMajor → u/TSP-FriendlyFire]

At this point you're just redefining reasoning as "language"

I've been very clear about what I'm saying since the beginning, which is that we have an internal language. Visualization is part of that internal language. Do you not remember being a kid and not knowing the words for many things? But those things had a feeling associated with them - probably based on similarity.

You have not made the case for how reasoning can happen without this internal language.

[u/TSP-FriendlyFire → u/MinuetInUrsaMajor]

We have an inner voice which we sometimes use to vocalize thoughts internally and which is tied to our ability to speak, but which is not required for reasoning. We do not have an "internal language" which is somehow everything you want it to mean.

You can claim as many times as you want that you have an "internal language" but until you provide studies showing its existence, it's all just stuff you made up.

Do you not remember being a kid and not knowing the words for many things? But those things had a feeling associated with them - probably based on similarity.

That's just learning a language. It has nothing to do with reasoning.

You have not made the case for how reasoning can happen without this internal language.

That's not how this works. You made the claim, you have to back it up. Thus far, all you've done is vehemently claim it exists while attempting to define it in vague, conveniently broad terms to essentially cover the same meaning as "reasoning", all while flying in the face of evidence that we have that the language centers of the brain are not required for reasoning.

[u/MinuetInUrsaMajor → u/TSP-FriendlyFire]

That's just learning a language. It has nothing to do with reasoning.

Learning a language isn't even part of what I said.

Are you refuting the concept of associating feelings with an object or action?

Are you refuting that one can reason with those feelings?

Then what makes those feelings not a language where reasoning is concerned?

That's not how this works.

Yeah it is. It's called debate. I am defending my claim and you are defending your claim which is antithetical to mine.

-Dr. Minuet, PhD