Skip to main content

Stochastic LLMs do not Understand Language: Towards Symbolic, Explainable and Ontologically Based LLMs

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Conceptual Modeling (ER 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14320))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In our opinion the exuberance surrounding the relative success of data-driven large language models (LLMs) is slightly misguided and for several reasons (i) LLMs cannot be relied upon for factual information since for LLMs all ingested text (factual or non-factual) was created equal; (ii) due to their subsymbolic nature, whatever ‘knowledge’ these models acquire about language will always be buried in billions of microfeatures (weights), none of which is meaningful on its own; and (iii) LLMs will often fail to make the correct inferences in several linguistic contexts (e.g., nominal compounds, copredication, quantifier scope ambiguities, intensional contexts). Since we believe the relative success of data-driven large language models (LLMs) is not a reflection on the symbolic vs. subsymbolic debate but a reflection on applying the successful strategy of a bottom-up reverse engineering of language at scale, we suggest in this paper applying the effective bottom-up strategy in a symbolic setting resulting in symbolic, explainable, and ontologically grounded language models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    GPT stands for ‘Generative Pre-trained Transformer’, an architecture that OpenAI built on top of the transformer architecture introduced in (Vaswani et al., 2017).

  2. 2.

    See (Saba, 2022) for a more detailed discussion on the relationship between compositionality, structured semantics and explainability, and (Fodor and Pylyshyn, 1988) for a more detailed critic of subsymbolic systems and their inadequacy in preserving semantic systematicity.

  3. 3.

    For more on nominal compounds see (McShane et al., 2014) and (Larson, 1998).

  4. 4.

    Example taken from (Peckenpaugh, 2019), with some modification.

  5. 5.

    See (Shelestiuk, 2005) and (Piñango et al., 2017) for a good discussion of metonymy.

References

  • Aitchison, J.: Words in the Mind – An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon, Wiley (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N.: Lexical Meaning in Context, a Web of Words. Cambridge University Press (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N., Pustejovsky, J.: A type composition logic for generative lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Science 6, 1–38 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Boleda, G.: Distributional Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Annual Review of Linguistics 6, 213–234 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M.: Frege: Philosophy of Language. Harvard University Press (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Zenon W.: Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis, Cognition, 28 (1), pp. 3–71 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J.: Ontological promiscuity. In Proc. of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Chicago, Illinois, 1985, pp. 61–69 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Z.S.: Distributional Structure. Word 10, 146–162 (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, K. E. and Pafel, J.: Quantifier Scope Ambiguities, In Martin Everaert and Henk C. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, R.: Events and Modification in Nominals, In Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds), SALT VIII, 145- 168, Ithaca, NY (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidz, J.: Children’s Use of Syntax in Word Learning, In Anna Papafragou, John C. Trueswell & Lila R. Gleitman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Mental Lexicon, Oxford University Press (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, J.: Can Deep CNNs Avoid Infnite Regress/Circularity in Content Constitution?, Minds and Machines, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-023-09642-0 (2023)

  • McShane, M., Beale, S. and Babkin, P.: Nominal Compound Interpretation by Intelligent Agents, Linguistic Issues in Language Technology (LiLT), vol. 10, No 1 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, P.: Frege’s Context Principle. Mind 95(380), 491–495 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, F.: Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language, Oxford University Press (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Peckenpaugh, T.: Prepositional phrase attachment ambiguities in declarative and interrogative contexts: Oral reading data, PhD Thesis, The City University of New York (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  • Piñango, M.M., Zhang, M., et al.: Metonymy as Referential Dependency: Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Arguments for a Unified Linguistic Treatment. Cogn. Sci.. Sci. 41(S2), 351–378 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saba, W.: New Research Vindicates Fodor and Pylyshyn: No Explainable AI Without ‘Structured Semantics, Blog of the Communications of the ACM, September 14 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  • Saba, W.: Language, Knowledge and Ontology: Where Formal Semantics Went Wrong, and How to Go Forward, Again. Journal of Knowledge Structures and Systems (JKSS) 1(1), 40–62 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Saba, W., Corriveau, J.-P.: Plausible Reasoning and the Resolution of Quantifier Scope Ambiguities, Studia Logica – Int. J. Symb. Log.Symb. Log. 67, 271–289 (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saba, W.: Language, logic and ontology: Uncovering the structure of commonsense knowledge. Int. J. of Human Computer Studies 7(65), 610–623 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelestiuk, H. V.: Metonymy as a tool of cognition and representation: A natural language analysis, Semiotica, pp. 1–20 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, F.: Types and ontology. Philos. Rev. 72(3), 327–363 (1963)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugawara, S. and Tsugita. S.: On Degrees of Freedom in Defining and Testing Natural Language Understanding, In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL, pp. 13625–13649 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., et. al.: Attention is All You Need, In NIPS’17: Proceedings of the 31st Int. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. pp. 6000–6010, (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Viebahn, E.: Copredication, polysemy and context-sensitivity, Inquiry, Volume 65 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. and Heim, I. Lecture Notes on Intensional Semantics, available online here https://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/summerschool2002/fintel.pdf, (2002)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walid S. Saba .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Saba, W.S. (2023). Stochastic LLMs do not Understand Language: Towards Symbolic, Explainable and Ontologically Based LLMs. In: Almeida, J.P.A., Borbinha, J., Guizzardi, G., Link, S., Zdravkovic, J. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14320. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-47261-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-47262-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics