REVIEW 2 cited by
Imitation versus Innovation: What children can do that large language and language-and-vision models cannot (yet)?
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
Much discussion about large language models and language-and-vision models has focused on whether these models are intelligent agents. We present an alternative perspective. We argue that these artificial intelligence models are cultural technologies that enhance cultural transmission in the modern world, and are efficient imitation engines. We explore what AI models can tell us about imitation and innovation by evaluating their capacity to design new tools and discover novel causal structures, and contrast their responses with those of human children. Our work serves as a first step in determining which particular representations and competences, as well as which kinds of knowledge or skill, can be derived from particular learning techniques and data. Critically, our findings suggest that machines may need more than large scale language and images to achieve what a child can do.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Reading Without a Reader: Large Language Models Collapse Reading and Writing into a Single Entangled Code
In decoder-only LLMs, input and output token codes are coupled but sub-ceiling (E≈0.23–0.35 against floor and ceiling anchors), and no output-side score pair can validly dissociate the model's 'reading' from its 'writing'.
-
Humanlike Cognitive Patterns as Emergent Phenomena in Large Language Models
A literature review concludes that LLMs show partial humanlike cognitive patterns in bias, reasoning, and creativity, but the evidence is dominated by GPT models and the 'emergence' framing is not directly tested.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.