On the referential capacity of language models: An internalist rejoinder to Mandelkern & Linzen
In a recent paper, Mandelkern & Linzen (2024) - henceforth M&L - address the question of whether language models' (LMs) words refer. Their argument draws from the externalist tradition in philosophical semantics, which views reference as the capacity of words to "achieve 'word-to-world' connections". In the externalist framework, causally uninterrupted chains of usage, tracing every occurrence of a name back to its bearer, guarantee that, for example, 'Peano' refers to the individual Peano (Kripke 1980). This account is externalist both because words pick out referents 'out there' in the world, and because what determines reference are coordinated linguistic actions by members of a community, and not individual mental states. The "central question to ask", for M&L, is whether LMs too belong to human linguistic communities, such that words by LMs may also trace back causally to their bearers. Their answer is a cautious "yes": inputs to LMs are linguistic "forms with particular histories of referential use"; "those histories ground the referents of those forms"; any occurrence of 'Peano' in LM outputs is as causally connected to the individual Peano as any other occurrence of the same proper name in human speech or text; therefore, occurrences of 'Peano' in LM outputs refer to Peano. In this commentary, we first qualify M&L's claim as applying to a narrow class of natural language expressions. Thus qualified, their claim is valid, and we emphasise an additional motivation for that in Section 2. Next, we discuss the actual scope of their claim, and we suggest that the way they formulate it may lead to unwarranted generalisations about reference in LMs. Our critique is likewise applicable to other externalist accounts of LMs (e.g., Lederman & Mahowald 2024; Mollo & Milliere 2023). Lastly, we conclude with a comment on the status of LMs as members of human linguistic communities.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Rejoinder: New Objectives for Policy Learning
I provide a rejoinder for discussion of "More Efficient Policy Learning via Optimal Retargeting" to appear in the Journal of the American Statistical Association with discussion by Oliver Dukes and Stijn Vansteelandt; Si…
The Epistemological Consequences of Large Language Models: Rethinking collective intelligence and institutional knowledge
We examine epistemological threats posed by human and LLM interaction. We develop collective epistemology as a theory of epistemic warrant distributed across human collectives, using bounded rationality and dual process …
Rejoinder for "Probabilistic Integration: A Role in Statistical Computation?"
This article is the rejoinder for the paper "Probabilistic Integration: A Role in Statistical Computation?" to appear in Statistical Science with discussion. We would first like to thank the reviewers and many of our col…
Rejoinder: On nearly assumption-free tests of nominal confidence interval coverage for causal parameters estimated by machine learning
This is the rejoinder to the discussion by Kennedy, Balakrishnan and Wasserman on the paper "On nearly assumption-free tests of nominal confidence interval coverage for causal parameters estimated by machine learning" pu…
BIG-bench Machine LearningRejoinder for the discussion of the paper "A novel algorithmic approach to Bayesian Logic Regression"
In this rejoinder we summarize the comments, questions and remarks on the paper "A novel algorithmic approach to Bayesian Logic Regression" from the discussants. We then respond to those comments, questions and remarks, …
regression