REVIEW 2 cited by
Do Language Models' Words Refer?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
What do language models (LMs) do with language? Everyone agrees that they can produce sequences of (mostly) coherent strings of English. But do those sentences mean something, or are LMs simply babbling in a convincing simulacrum of language use? Here we will address one aspect of this broad question: whether LMs' words can refer, that is, achieve "word-to-world" connections. There is prima facie reason to think they do not since LMs do not interact with the world in the way that ordinary language users do. Drawing on insights from the externalist tradition in philosophy of language, we argue that those appearances are misleading: even if the inputs to an LM are simply strings of text, they are strings of text with natural histories, and that may suffice to put LMs' words into referential contact with the external world.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Propositional Interpretability in Artificial Intelligence
Chalmers proposes propositional interpretability, interpreting AI in terms of beliefs, desires, and credences, and sets the challenge of thought logging all such attitudes over time.
-
A Benchmark for the Detection of Metalinguistic Disagreements between LLMs and Knowledge Graphs
Metalinguistic disagreements, where the dispute is over word meaning rather than facts, appear in LLM fact-checking against knowledge graphs, based on a 250-triple pilot study.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.