No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Beyond the limitations of any imaginable mechanism: Large language models and psycholinguistics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 December 2023
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are not detailed models of human linguistic processing. They are, however, extremely successful at their primary task: Providing a model for language. For this reason LLMs are important in psycholinguistics: They are useful as a practical tool, as an illustrative comparative, and philosophically, as a basis for recasting the relationship between language and thought.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Bernardy, J.-P., & Lappin, S. (2017). Using deep neural networks to learn syntactic agreement. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 15(2), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., … Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dambacher, M., Kliegl, R., Hofmann, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2006). Frequency and predictability effects on event-related potentials during reading. Brain Research, 1084(1), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Burstein, J., Doran, C., & Solorio, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. (pp. 4171–4186). https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805Google Scholar
Fischler, I., & Bloom, P. A. (1979). Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of sentence contexts on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, S. L., Otten, L. J., Galli, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2015). The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 140, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulordava, K., Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Linzen, T., & Baroni, M. (2018). Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In Walker, M., Ji, H., & Stent, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 1195–2205). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.11138.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kleiman, G. M. (1980). Sentence frame contexts and lexical decisions: Sentence-acceptability and word- relatedness effects. Memory & Cognition, 8(4), 336–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuncoro, A., Dyer, C., Hale, J., & Blunsom, P. (2018). The perils of natural behaviour tests for unnatural models: The case of number agreement. Poster presented at learning language in humans and in machines, Paris, France, July, 5(6). Organizers: Susan Goldin-Meadow, Afra Alishahi, Phil Blunsom, Cynthia Fisher, Chen Yu & Michael Frank.Google Scholar
Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3(3), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, T., Dupoux, E., & Goldberg, Y. (2016). Assessing the ability of LSTMs to learn syntax-sensitive dependencies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4, 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, T., & Leonard, B. (2018). Distinct patterns of syntactic agreement errors in recurrent networks and humans. In Kalish, C., Rau, M. A., Zhu, X. (J.), & Rogers, T. T. (Eds.), Proceedings of CogSci 2018 (pp. 692–697).Google Scholar
Marvin, R., & Linzen, T. (2018). Targeted syntactic evaluation of language models. In Riloff, E., Chiang, D., Hockenmaier, J., & Tsujii, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1192–1202).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, J., Kazanina, N., Houghton, C., & Bowers, J. (2019). Do LSTMs know about Principle C?. In Nienborg, H., Poldrack, R., & Naselaris, T. (Eds.), Conference on Cognitive Computational Neuroscience, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.32470/CCN.2019.1241-0Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 504–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukumaran, P., Houghton, C., & Kazanina, N. (2022). Do LSTMs see gender? Probing the ability of LSTMs to learn abstract syntactic rules. In Bastings, J., Belinkov, Y., Elazar, Y., Hupkes, D., Saphr, N., & Wiegreffe, S. (Eds.), Poster at BlackboxNLP 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.00153Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind; A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, 49, 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Deep problems with neural network models of human vision
Related commentaries (29)
Explananda and explanantia in deep neural network models of neurological network functions
A deep new look at color
Beyond the limitations of any imaginable mechanism: Large language models and psycholinguistics
Comprehensive assessment methods are key to progress in deep learning
Deep neural networks are not a single hypothesis but a language for expressing computational hypotheses
Even deeper problems with neural network models of language
Fixing the problems of deep neural networks will require better training data and learning algorithms
For deep networks, the whole equals the sum of the parts
For human-like models, train on human-like tasks
Going after the bigger picture: Using high-capacity models to understand mind and brain
Implications of capacity-limited, generative models for human vision
Let's move forward: Image-computable models and a common model evaluation scheme are prerequisites for a scientific understanding of human vision
Modelling human vision needs to account for subjective experience
Models of vision need some action
My pet pig won't fly and I want a refund
Neither hype nor gloom do DNNs justice
Neural networks need real-world behavior
Neural networks, AI, and the goals of modeling
Perceptual learning in humans: An active, top-down-guided process
Psychophysics may be the game-changer for deep neural networks (DNNs) to imitate the human vision
Statistical prediction alone cannot identify good models of behavior
The model-resistant richness of human visual experience
The scientific value of explanation and prediction
There is a fundamental, unbridgeable gap between DNNs and the visual cortex
Thinking beyond the ventral stream: Comment on Bowers et al.
Using DNNs to understand the primate vision: A shortcut or a distraction?
Where do the hypotheses come from? Data-driven learning in science and the brain
Why psychologists should embrace rather than abandon DNNs
You can't play 20 questions with nature and win redux
Author response
Clarifying status of DNNs as models of human vision