REVIEW 1 cited by
Does Conceptual Representation Require Embodiment? Insights From 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
To what extent can language alone give rise to complex concepts, or is embodied experience essential? Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer fresh perspectives on this question. Although LLMs are trained on restricted modalities, they exhibit human-like performance in diverse psychological tasks. Our study compared representations of 4,442 lexical concepts between humans and ChatGPTs (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) across multiple dimensions, including five key domains: emotion, salience, mental visualization, sensory, and motor experience. We identify two main findings: 1) Both models strongly align with human representations in non-sensorimotor domains but lag in sensory and motor areas, with GPT-4 outperforming GPT-3.5; 2) GPT-4's gains are associated with its additional visual learning, which also appears to benefit related dimensions like haptics and imageability. These results highlight the limitations of language in isolation, and that the integration of diverse modalities of inputs leads to a more human-like conceptual representation.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Trinity: Synchronizing Verbal, Nonverbal, and Visual Channels to Support Academic Oral Presentation Delivery
Trinity, a hybrid mobile-plus-PC presentation support system, generates synchronized verbal, nonverbal, and visual delivery prompts and was rated significantly more helpful than two baselines in a user study.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.