Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T20:41:56.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A machine that still doesn't quite understand us

Putting ChatGPT to the test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2024

Carrie A. Ankerstein Open the ORCID record for Carrie A. Ankerstein [Opens in a new window]
Carrie A. Ankerstein*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Saarland University, Germany
*
Corresponding author: Carrie A. Ankerstein; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a short, accessible book Linguistics: Why it Matters, Geoffrey Pullum, a leader in the field, offered an overview of what the study of linguistics is for the lay reader. In the penultimate chapter, titled ‘Machines that understand us’, Pullum (2018) set out to show what it would mean for computers to be able to use language like a human. He argued it would have to go beyond simple spoken or written word recognition and include processing of complex and novel structures. In this article, using ChatGPT, I revisit the tests that Pullum originally ran with Google and Microsoft Word, likewise for an audience curious about, but unfamiliar with, large language models.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 2024 , pp. 167 - 175
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aronson, J. K. 2023. ‘When I use a word . . . ChatGPT: A differential diagnosis.’ BMJ, 382, 1862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P. . . . & Amodei, D. 2020. ‘Language models are few-shot learners.’ Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Online at <https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165>..>Google Scholar
Frieder, S., Pinchetti, L., Chevalier, A., Griffiths, R.–R., Salvatori, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Petersen, P. C. & Berner, J. (pre-print). ‘Mathematical capabilities of ChatGPT.’ Online at <https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13867>..>Google Scholar
Giray, L. 2023. ‘Prompt engineering with ChatGPT: A guide for academic writers.’ Annals of Biomedical Engineering. Online at <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03272-4>.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutson, M. 2021. ‘Robo-writers: the rise and risks of language-generating AI.’ Nature, 591(4), 22–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT (February 13 Version). Online at <https://chat.openai.com/chat>..>Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. 2018. ‘Machines that understand us.’ In Pullum, G. K., Linguistics: Why it Matters. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 83–120.Google Scholar