{"id":301567,"date":"2023-06-14T20:32:02","date_gmt":"2023-06-15T00:32:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/knowtechie.com\/?p=301567"},"modified":"2023-06-21T03:59:44","modified_gmt":"2023-06-21T07:59:44","slug":"humans-and-chatgpt-mirror-mutual-language-patterns-heres-how","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/knowtechie.com\/humans-and-chatgpt-mirror-mutual-language-patterns-heres-how\/","title":{"rendered":"Humans and ChatGPT mirror mutual language patterns \u2013 here’s how"},"content":{"rendered":"

ChatGPT is a hot topic at my university, where faculty members are deeply concerned about academic integrity, while administrators urge us to \u201cembrace the benefits\u201d of this \u201cnew frontier.\u201d<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s a classic example of what my colleague Punya Mishra<\/a> calls the \u201cdoom-hype cycle\u201d around new technologies. Likewise, media coverage of human-AI interaction \u2013 whether paranoid or starry-eyed \u2013 tends to emphasize its newness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one sense, it is undeniably new. Interactions with ChatGPT can feel unprecedented, as when a tech journalist couldn\u2019t get a chatbot to stop declaring its love for him<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my view, however, the boundary between humans and machines, in terms of the way we interact with one another, is fuzzier than most people would care to admit, and this fuzziness accounts for a good deal of the discourse swirling around ChatGPT<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I\u2019m asked to check a box to confirm I\u2019m not a robot, I don\u2019t give it a second thought \u2013 of course, I\u2019m not a robot. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, when my email client suggests a word or phrase to complete my sentence or when my phone guesses the next word I\u2019m about to text, I start to doubt myself. Is that what I meant to say? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Would it have occurred to me if the application hadn\u2019t suggested it? Am I part robot? These large language models have been trained on massive amounts of \u201cnatural\u201d human language. Does this make the robots part human?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI chatbots are new, but public debates over language change are not. As a linguistic anthropologist<\/a>, I find human reactions to ChatGPT the most interesting thing about it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking carefully at such reactions reveals the beliefs about language underlying people\u2019s ambivalent, uneasy, still-evolving relationship with AI interlocutors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ChatGPT and the like hold up a mirror to human language. Humans are both highly original and unoriginal when it comes to language. Chatbots reflect this, revealing tendencies and patterns that are already present in interactions with other humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Creators or mimics?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"The
Image: Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Recently, famed linguist Noam Chomsky and his colleagues argued that chatbots are \u201cstuck in a prehuman or nonhuman phase of cognitive evolution<\/a>\u201d because they can only describe and predict, not explain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than drawing on an infinite capacity to generate new phrases, they compensate with huge amounts of input, which allows them to make predictions about which words to use with a high degree of accuracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is in line with Chomsky\u2019s historic recognition<\/a> that human language could not be produced merely through children\u2019s imitation of adult speakers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The human language faculty had to be generative since children do not receive enough input to account for all the forms they produce, many of which they could not have heard before. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is the only way to explain why humans \u2013 unlike other animals with sophisticated systems of communication \u2013 have a theoretically infinite capacity to generate new phrases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n