REVIEW 3 cited by
LLMs' Understanding of Natural Language Revealed
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
Large language models (LLMs) are the result of a massive experiment in bottom-up, data-driven reverse engineering of language at scale. Despite their utility in a number of downstream NLP tasks, ample research has shown that LLMs are incapable of performing reasoning in tasks that require quantification over and the manipulation of symbolic variables (e.g., planning and problem solving); see for example [25][26]. In this document, however, we will focus on testing LLMs for their language understanding capabilities, their supposed forte. As we will show here, the language understanding capabilities of LLMs have been widely exaggerated. While LLMs have proven to generate human-like coherent language (since that's how they were designed), their language understanding capabilities have not been properly tested. In particular, we believe that the language understanding capabilities of LLMs should be tested by performing an operation that is the opposite of 'text generation' and specifically by giving the LLM snippets of text as input and then querying what the LLM "understood". As we show here, when doing so it will become apparent that LLMs do not truly understand language, beyond very superficial inferences that are essentially the byproduct of the memorization of massive amounts of ingested text.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Can Large Language Models Understand Internet Buzzwords Through User-Generated Content
RESS, which prompts LLMs from six language-learning aspects and ensembles the results, improves Chinese buzzword definition generation over baselines, while the benchmark shows LLMs over-rely on prior exposure to buzzwords.
-
Potemkin Understanding in Large Language Models
LLMs frequently pass definition questions yet fail to use the same concepts in classification, generation, and editing tasks, a gap the authors call potemkin understanding.
-
Rethinking the Understanding Ability across LLMs through Mutual Information
The paper uses token-level recoverability as a computable lower bound on mutual information to compare LLMs and to fine-tune them, finding encoder-only models preserve information better than decoder-only models.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.