REVIEW 3 cited by
Meaning without reference in large language models
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
The widespread success of large language models (LLMs) has been met with skepticism that they possess anything like human concepts or meanings. Contrary to claims that LLMs possess no meaning whatsoever, we argue that they likely capture important aspects of meaning, and moreover work in a way that approximates a compelling account of human cognition in which meaning arises from conceptual role. Because conceptual role is defined by the relationships between internal representational states, meaning cannot be determined from a model's architecture, training data, or objective function, but only by examination of how its internal states relate to each other. This approach may clarify why and how LLMs are so successful and suggest how they can be made more human-like.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
The time course of visuo-semantic representations in the human brain is captured by combining vision and language models
A fusion of vision DNN and LLM representations predicts human EEG responses to images better than either model alone, with distinct temporal and spectral signatures.
-
On the Semantics of Large Language Models
LLMs plausibly have Fregean 'sense' semantics but not reference, so the question of whether they understand depends on the theory of meaning.
-
A quantum semantic framework for natural language processing
The paper reports CHSH inequality violations from LLM interpretations of ambiguous sentences and uses them to claim that linguistic meaning is non-classical and observer-dependent.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.