It seems that the recent breakthrough in LLM has created a new situation when humans can talk to AI using natural language. However, there are still many questions about how these models understand the language, how they learn, generate the response and build predictions. I am wondering if we can say that the novel chat GPT-3 understands the meaning of the words and if it is possible to prove (from the philosophical or technical point of view) that it does (or does not) understand the meanings of the words/ sentences/paragraphs it generates.
"No, GPT-3 does not understand the meaning of the words/sentences/paragraphs it generates. Instead, it uses statistical techniques to generate text based on patterns it has learned from training data."
GPT-3 is a statistical language model that uses artificial intelligence to generate text. It is trained on a large corpus of text, which it uses to learn patterns and generate text that is similar to the training data. However, it does not understand the context or meaning of the text it produces. It simply uses statistics to produce text that is similar to the corpus it was trained on. As such, it does not have any understanding of the words, sentences, or paragraphs it generates.
No, it is not possible to prove from a philosophical or technical point of view whether or not GPT-3 understands the meaning of the words, sentences, or paragraphs it generates. GPT-3 is a statistical language model that is trained on a large corpus of text, which it uses to generate text that is similar to the training data. It does not have any understanding of the context or meaning of the text it produces, and simply uses statistics to generate text.
In a sense you can say LLMs understand language, as they can produce coherent, grammatically correct text.
But in the sense of human understanding I agree with Sandeep Kumar. Since ChatGPT produces text by inferencing a statistical model and doesn't have any personal or experiental knowledge, it's safe to say it doesn't (and can't) understand the meaning of the words it produces.
It depends on what is meant by "understand". If understanding means being aware of contextual connections and meanings, seeing metaphorical connections between images created by words, then ChatGPT does not understand, and Sandeep Kumar has shown this in terms of the technological side of neural network operation.
For my part, I can say that attempts to analyze verse texts with this neural network confirm the above. The chat clearly sees the semantic and grammatical links between the words of the poem, but is unable to formulate the content of the figurative, tropic components. The situation is approximately the same with the use of rhyme and verse size. Chat "knows" what these are, but is unable to translate this information into a result.
But if understanding means seeing the possible connections between the words of the text and combining them adequately, then we can say that the chat understands it))
Sandeep Kumar, thank you for your explanation of the technical part of the GPT. Now it is much more clear for me. I have also read elsewhere that while generating the text GPT chooses the next word by statistically analyzing all the previous words it has used in the sentence before. In this sense, it fits everything you have mentioned in your response.
Anatoliy Stoletov, did I understand you correctly, your point is that GPT is unable to produce content with a precise usage of the rhyme? In fact, I saw several examples where the GPT model is able to create pretty suitable usage of rhyme in various styles. Of course, it leaves the question of 'understanding' open. However, if we will stick to the definition where the understanding is rather a capacity of seeing the possible connections between words then we can somehow say that chat 'understands' and uses rhyme pretty well.
To the question “Does ChatGPT think?” it answered: “As an artificial intelligence language model, ChatGPT does not have subjective experiences or consciousness in the way that humans do. However, ChatGPT is designed to simulate human-like thinking by processing and analysing text data, generating responses based on patterns and associations in the data. So, in that sense, you could say that ChatGPT engages in a type of ‘thinking’ when it generates responses to user input.”
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230222131416630
Ljubomir Jacić, thank you for sharing.
The other interesting thing in this regard is that while chat GPT understands the language statistically it doesn't have access to the referential components of the words it generates (if we are taking a 'referential' theory of understanding as a kind of 'default' mode here). While humans understand the meaning of many words through the reference to an object it represents (for example, the word 'table' refers to this material object in front of me) and we also have perceptual access to these objects (like visual, haptic, etc.); chat GPT doesn't have the same conceptual and perceptual setting. However, what is most interesting here, is that we still can say that chat GPT somehow 'understands' the language (at least because it can use the language pretty well). As a result, we are witnessing a new type of 'language understanding', which is not the same as human understanding, however, also can be called 'understanding'.
Dmytro Mykhailov I would be interested to see examples of satisfactory rhyme creation, since my experience was unsuccessful: in Russian poems chat not only failed to create a rhyming text on a given topic using author's style and without style and pointed out the wrong example of rhyme in the text he created, but also failed to maintain the verse line size. Perhaps things are better in the English version, but I have no experience with that yet. An acquaintance of mine who was doing about the same thing spoke of similar results
What Poets Know That ChatGPT Doesn’t
There’s a reason the AI writes pretty awful verse.
One of the least discussed aspects of the AI language generator ChatGPT might be its ability to produce pretty awful poetry...
ChatGPT cannot write poetry—or prose, for that matter—that is “the cry of its occasion,”....
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/02/chatgpt-ai-technology-writing-poetry/673035/
No. weak AI cannot understand.
See my paper on how consciousness arises in biological organisms making it possible for the first time to develop Strong AI.
Chat GPT is like a little pebble in comparison to what the future has installed when it comes to weak AI (DeepMind) technology and Strong AI technology.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Demystifying_consciousness_through_its_mathematical_modeling2
According to Gautam Buddha University, GPT-3 does not understand the meaning of the words/sentences/paragraphs it generates. Instead, it uses statistical techniques to generate text based on patterns it has learned from training data. GPT-3 is a statistical language model that uses artificial intelligence to generate text.
ChatGPT is a Remarkable Tool -- For Experts
This paper investigates the capabilities of ChatGPT as an automated assistant in diverse domains, including scientific writing, mathematics, education, programming, and healthcare. We explore the potential of ChatGPT to enhance productivity, streamline problem-solving processes, and improve writing style...
Furthermore, we highlight the potential risks associated with excessive reliance on ChatGPT in these fields. These limitations encompass factors like incorrect and fictitious responses, inaccuracies in code, limited logical reasoning abilities, overconfidence, and critical ethical concerns of copyrights and privacy violation...
Preprint ChatGPT is a Remarkable Tool -- For Experts
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation