Chomsky on what ChatGPT is good for
146 comments
·May 25, 2025calibas
krackers
Restricted to linguistics, LLM's supposed lack of understanding should be a non-sequitur. If the question is whether LLMs have formed a coherent ability to parse human languages, the answer is obviously yes. In fact not just human languages, as seen with multimodality the same transformer architecture seems to work well to model and generate anything with inherent structure.
I'm surprised that he doesn't mention "universal grammar" once in that essay. Maybe it so happens that humans do have some innate "universal grammar" wired in by instinct but it's clearly not _necessary_ to be able to parse things. You don't need to set up some explicit language rules or generative structure, enough data and the model learns to produce it. I wonder if anyone has gone back and tried to see if you can extract out some explicit generative rules from the learned representation though.
Since the "universal grammar" hypothesis isn't really falsifiable, at best you can hope for some generalized equivalent that's isomorphic to the platonic representation hypothesis and claim that all human language is aligned in some given latent representation, and that our brains have been optimized to be able to work in this subspace. That's at least a testable assumption, by trying to reverse engineer the geometry of the space LLMs have learned.
LudwigNagasena
That was a weird ride. He was asked whether AI will outsmart humans and went on a rant about philosophy of science seemingly trying to defend the importance of his research and culminated with some culture war commentary about postmodernism.
lucisferre
"The desert ants in my backyard have minuscule brains, but far exceed human navigational capacities, in principle, not just performance. There is no Great Chain of Being with humans at the top."
This quote brought to mind the very different technological development path of the spider species in Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Time. They used pheromones to 'program' a race of ants to do computation.
lostmsu
I don't know what he's talking about. Humans clearly outperform ants in navigation. Especially if you allow arbitrary markings on the terrain.
Sounds like "ineffable nature" mumbo-jumbo.
tpm
Arbitrary markings on the terrain? Why not GPS, satellite photo etc? All of those are human inventions and we can navigate much better and in a broader set of environments than ants thanks to them.
whattheheckheck
3.35 hrs Chomsky interview on ML Street Talk https://youtu.be/axuGfh4UR9Q
newAccount2025
I tried to read it, but gave up when he started dismissing perspectives with vague abstractions. What is an “impossible language?” What does it have to do with anything? Maybe there are interesting ideas here, but they are beyond me.
Smaug123
From some Googling and use of Claude (and from summaries of the suggestively titled "Impossible Languages" by Moro linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar ), it looks like he's referring to languages which violate the laws which constrain the languages humans are innately capable of learning. But it's very unclear why "machine M is capable of learning more complex languages than humans" implies anything about the linguistic competence or the intelligence of machine M.
cmiles74
Firstly, can't speak for Chomsky.
In this article he is very focused on science and works hard to delineate science (research? deriving new facts?) from engineering (clearly product oriented). In his opinion ChatGPT falls on the engineering side of this line: it's a product of engineering, OpenAI is concentrating on marketing. For sure there was much science involved but the thing we have access to is a product.
IMHO Chomsky is asking: while ChatGPT is a fascinating product, what is it teaching us about language? How is it advancing our knowledge of language? I think Chomsky is saying "not much."
Someone else mentioned embeddings and the relationship between words that they reveal. Indeed, this could be a worthy area of further research. You'd think it would be a real boon when comparing languages. Unfortunately the interviewer didn't ask Chomsky about this.
foobarqux
It doesn't, it just says that LLMs are not useful models of the human language faculty.
specialist
This is where I'm stuck.
For other commentators, as I understand it, Chomsky's talking about well-defined grammar and language and production systems. Think Hofstadter's Godel Escher Bach. Not "folk" understanding of language.
I have no understanding or intuition, or even a finger nail grasp, for how an LLM generates, seemingly emulating, "sentences", as though created with a generative grammar.
Is any one comparing and contrasting these two different techniques? Being noob, I wouldn't even know where to start looking.
I've gleaned that someone(s) are using LLM/GPT to emit abstract syntax trees (vs a mere stream of tokens), to serve as input for formal grammars (eg programming source code). That sounds awesome. And something I might some day sorta understand.
I've also gleaned that, given sufficient computing power, training data for future LLMs will have tokenized words (vs just character sequences). Which would bring the two strategies closer...? I have no idea.
(Am noob, so forgive my poor use of terminology. And poor understanding of the tech, too.)
submeta
Chomsky’s notion is: LLMs can only imitate, not understand language. But what exactly is understanding? What if our „understanding“ is just unlocking another level in a model? Unlocking a new form of generation?
roughly
> But what exactly is understanding?
He alludes to quite a bit here - impossible languages, intrinsic rules that don’t actually express in the language, etc - that leads me to believe there’s a pretty specific sense by which he means “understanding,” and I’d expect there’s a decent literature in linguistics covering what he’s referring to. If it’s a topic of interest to you, chasing down some of those leads might be a good start.
(I’ll note as several others have here too that most of his language seems to be using specific linguistics terms of art - “language” for “human language” is a big tell, as is the focus on understanding the mechanisms of language and how humans understand and generate languages - I’m not sure the critique here is specifically around LLMs, but more around their ability to teach us things about how humans understand language.)
npteljes
I have trouble with the notion "understanding". I get the usefulness of the word, but I don't think that we are capable to actually understand. I also think that we are not even able to test for understanding - a good imitation is as good as understanding. Also, understanding has limits. In school, they often say on class that you should forget whatever you have been taught so far, because this new layer of knowledge that they are about to teach you. Was the previous knowledge not "understanding" then? Is the new one "understanding"?
If we define "understanding" like "useful", as in, not an innate attribute, but something in relation to a goal, then again, a good imitation, or a rudimentary model can get very far. ChatGPT "understood" a lot of things I have thrown at it, be that algorithms, nutrition, basic calculations, transformation between text formats, where I'm stuck in my personal development journey, or how to politely address people in the email I'm about to write.
>What if our „understanding“ is just unlocking another level in a model?
I believe that it is - that understanding is basically an illusion. Impressions are made up from perceptions and thinking, and extrapolated over the unknown. And just look how far that got us!
dinfinity
> But what exactly is understanding?
I would say that it is to what extent your mental model of a certain system is able to make accurate predictions of that system's behavior.
smokel
Understanding is probably not much more than making abstractions into simpler terms until you are left with something one can relate to by intuition or social consensus.
johnfn
> It’s as if a biologist were to say: “I have a great new theory of organisms. It lists many that exist and many that can’t possibly exist, and I can tell you nothing about the distinction.”
> Again, we’d laugh. Or should.
Should we? This reminds me acutely of imaginary numbers. They are a great theory of numbers that can list many numbers that do 'exist' and many that can't possibly 'exist'. And we did laugh when imaginary numbers were first introduced - the name itself was intended as a derogatory term for the concept. But who's laughing now?
kelsey978126
This is the point where i realized he has no clue what he is saying. Theres so many creatures that once existed that can never again exist on earth due to the changes that the planet has gone through over millions, billions of years. The oxygen rich atmosphere that supported the dinosaurs for instance. If we had some kind of system that can put together proper working DNA for all the creatures that ever actually existed on this planet, some half of them would be completely nonviable if introduced to the ecosystem today. He is failing to see that there is an incredible understanding of systems that we are producing with this work, but he is a very old man from a very different time and contrarianism is often the only way to look smart or reasoned when you have no clue whats actually going on, so I am not shocked by his take.
bubblyworld
In the case of complex numbers mathematicians understand the distinction extremely well, so I'm not sure it's a perfect analogy.
chongli
Imaginary numbers are not relevant at all. There’s nothing whatsoever to do with the everyday use of the word imaginary. They could just as easily have been called “vertical numbers” and real numbers called “horizontal numbers” in order to more clearly illustrate their geometric interpretation in the complex plane.
The term “imaginary number” was coined by Rene Descartes as a derogatory and the ill intent behind his term has stuck ever since. I suspect his purpose was theological rather than mathematical and we are all the worse for it.
asmeurer
It's amusing that he argues (correctly) that "there is no Great Chain of Being with humans at the top," but then claims that LLMs cannot tell us anything about language because they can learn "impossible languages" that infants cannot learn. Isn't that an anthropomorphic argument, saying that what a language is inherently defined by human cognition?
tgv
When Chomsky says "language," he means "natural/human language," not e.g. /[ab]*/ or prime numbers.
foobarqux
Yes, studying human language is actually inherently defined by what humans do, just -- as he points out, if you could understand the article -- studying insect navigation is defined by what insects do and not what navigation systems human could design.
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2
It is unfortunate opinion, because I personally hold Chomsky in fairly high regard and give most of his thoughts I am familiar with a reasonable amount of consideration if only because he could, I suppose in the olden days now, articulate his points well and make you question your own thought process. This no longer seems to be the case though as I found the linked article somewhat difficult to follow. I suppose age can get to anyone.
Not that I am an LLM zealot. Frankly, some of the clear trajectory it puts humans on makes me question our futures in this timeline. But even if I am not a zealot, but merely an amused, but bored middle class rube, the serious issues with it ( privacy, detailed personal profiling that surpasses existing systems, energy use, and actual power of those who wield it ), I can see it being implemented everywhere with a mix of glee and annoyance.
I know for a fact it will break things and break things hard and it will be people, who know how things actually work that will need to fix those.
I will be very honest though. I think Chomsky is stuck in his internal model of the world and unable to shake it off. Even his arguments fall flat, because they don't fit the domain well. It seems like they should given that he practically made his name on syntax theory ( which suggests his thoughts should translate well into it ) and yet.. they don't.
I have a minor pet theory on this, but I am still working on putting it into some coherent words.
schoen
(2023)
asveikau
From what I've heard, Chomsky had a stroke which impacted his language. You will, unfortunately, not hear a recent opinion from him on current developments.
throwaway314155
Geez, talk about irony. That's terrible.
BryanLegend
Yean, a lot has happened in two years
null
0xDEAFBEAD
I confess my opinion of Noam Chomsky dropped a lot from reading this interview. The way he set up a "Tom Jones" strawman and kept dismissing positions using language like "we'd laugh", "total absurdity", etc. was really disappointing. I always assumed that academics were only like that on reddit, and in real life they actually made a serious effort at rigorous argument, avoiding logical fallacies and the like. Yet here is Chomsky addressing a lay audience that has no linguistics background, and instead of even attempting to summarize the arguments for his position, he simply asserts that opposing views are risible with little supporting argument. I expected much more from a big-name scholar.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
foobarqux
"Tom Jones" isn't a strawman, Chomsky is addressing an actual argument in a published paper from Steven Piantadosi. He's using a pseudonym to be polite and not call him out by name.
> instead of even attempting to summarize the arguments for his position..
He makes a very clear, simple argument, accessible to any layperson who can read. If you are studying insects what you are interested in is how insects do it not what other mechanisms you can come up with to "beat" insects. This isn't complicated.
0xDEAFBEAD
>The systems work just as well with impossible languages that infants cannot acquire as with those they acquire quickly and virtually reflexively.
Where is the research on impossible language that infants can't acquire? A good popsci article would give me leads here.
Even assuming Chomsky's claim is true, all it shows is that LLMs aren't an exact match for human language learning. But even an inexact model can still be a useful research tool.
>That’s highly unlikely for reasons long understood, but it’s not relevant to our concerns here, so we can put it aside. Plainly there is a biological endowment for the human faculty of language. The merest truism.
Again, a good popsci article would actually support these claims instead of simply asserting them and implying that anyone who disagrees is a simpleton.
I agree with Chomsky that the postmodern critique of science sucks, and I agree that AI is a threat to the human race.
foobarqux
> Where is the research on impossible language that infants can't acquire? A good popsci article would give me leads here.
It's not infants, it's adults but Moro "Secrets of Words" is a book that describes the experiments and is aimed at lay people.
> Even assuming Chomsky's claim is true, all it shows is that LLMs aren't an exact match for human language learning. But even an inexact model can still be a useful research tool.
If it is it needs to be shown, not assumed. Just as you wouldn't by default assume that GPS navigation tells you about insect navigation (though it might somehow).
> Again, a good popsci article would actually support these claims instead of simply asserting them and implying that anyone who disagrees is a simpleton.
He justifies the statement in the previous sentence (which you don't quote) where he says that it is self-evident by virtue of the fact that something exists at the beginning (i.e. it's not empty space). That's the "merest truism". No popsci article is going to help understand that if you don't already.
LudwigNagasena
Is it polite to deprive readers of context necessary to understand what the speaker is talking about? I was also very confused by that part and I had no idea whom or what he was talking about or why he even started taking about that.
I searched for an actual paper by that guy because you’ve mentioned his real name. I found “Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language”. After reading it seems even more true that Chomsky’s Tom Jones is a strawman.
foobarqux
> After reading it seems even more true that Chomsky's Tom Jones is a strawman.
Lol. It's clear you are not interested in having any kind of rational discussion on the topic and are driven by some kind of zealotry when you claim to have read a technical 40 page paper (with an additional 18 pages of citations) in 30 minutes.
Even if by some miraculous feat you had read it you haven't made a single actual argument or addressed any of the points made by Chomsky.
lostmsu
That's understandable but irrelevant. Only a few people have major interest in how humans think exactly. But nearly everyone is hang on the question if the LLMs could think better.
foobarqux
It's not irrelevant, it's the core of the disconnect: The problem is that everyone is arguing as if they passionately care about how humans work when, as you say, they don't care at all.
People should just recognize, as you have done, that they don't actually care about how the human language faculty works. It's baffling that they instead choose to make absurd arguments to defend fields they don't care one way or another about.
When Chomsky says that LLMs aren't how the human faculty works it would be so easy to tell the truth and say "I don't care how the human language faculty works" and everyone can go focus on the things they are interested in, just as it would be easy for a GPS designer to say "I don't care how insect navigation works".
There is no problem as long as you don't pretend to be caring about (this aspect of) science.
prpl
Reminds me of SUSY, string theory, the standard model, and beyond that, string theory etc…
What is elegant as a model is not always what works, and working towards a clean model to explain everything from a model that works is fraught, hard work.
I don’t think anyone alive will realize true “AGI”, but it won’t matter. You don’t need it, the same way particle physics doesn’t need elegance
The fact that we have figured out how to translate language into something a computer can "understand" should thrill linguists. Taking a word (token) and abstracting it's "meaning" as a 1,000-dimension vector seems like something that should revolutionize the field of linguistics. A whole new tool for analyzing and understanding the underlying patterns of all language!
And there's a fact here that's very hard to dispute, this method works. I can give a computer instructions and it "understands" them in a way that wasn't possible before LLMs. The main debate now is over the semantics of words like "understanding" and whether or not an LLM is conscious in the same way as a human being (it isn't).