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.
Do Language Models' Words Refer?
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
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.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CL 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
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.