REVIEW 2 cited by
The Debate Over Understanding in AI's 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
We survey a current, heated debate in the AI research community on whether large pre-trained language models can be said to "understand" language -- and the physical and social situations language encodes -- in any important sense. We describe arguments that have been made for and against such understanding, and key questions for the broader sciences of intelligence that have arisen in light of these arguments. We contend that a new science of intelligence can be developed that will provide insight into distinct modes of understanding, their strengths and limitations, and the challenge of integrating diverse forms of cognition.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Large Language Models for Zero-Shot Multicultural Name Recognition
A prompt-tuned LLM with data augmentation and cultural context prompts reportedly recognizes multicultural names at 93.1% accuracy and unseen names at 89.5%, but the evidence is not reproducible.
-
Revolutionizing Radiology Workflow with Factual and Efficient CXR Report Generation
CXR-PathFinder claims to outperform much larger medical vision-language models on chest X-ray reporting, using adversarial fine-tuning with clinician feedback and knowledge graph verification, but the evidence is not ...
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.