[Lingtyp] On AI, Language, and (In)Human Thinking

[Anna Alexandrova]

Dear Stela,

Thank you for this Big Yus Ѫ energy moment (is *енергия на голям юс* the
correct wording in Bulgarian?). I suspect many of us are a bit exhausted
for a challenge at the moment, though.

We did enjoy our math and coding classes back in school, even if we might
remember them less intensely than you do.

Best regards,

A.

Il giorno dom 9 nov 2025 alle ore 22:18 Stela MANOVA via Lingtyp <
lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> ha scritto:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> It turned out that the topic of LLMs is exactly like the topic of language
> — everybody feels competent, irrespective of their qualifications. In what
> follows, I would like to address some misinformation that appeared in
> relation to AI in recent messages on this list: that LLMs are designed to
> generate costs and therefore end virtually every answer with a question,
> and that they are “dangerous” because they operate in an entirely inhuman
> way, based only on form.
>
> As many of you know, my work focuses on ChatGPT, so I will use it in my
> examples:
>
> ChatGPT knows many things but cannot start a conversation. It needs
> prompts — i.e., contextual anchors — to select the next token. This is why
> it often ends answers with a question: not because it “thinks of money,”
> but because it seeks additional input. The larger the input, the better the
> answer. Note that the fact that AI is reactive, not proactive, places the
> human in control of the machine.
>
> LLMs are not mere text collections but a triumph of human intelligence.
> You do not believe that if you have the whole Internet in text format, this
> huge amount of text will start speaking like a human by itself. Behind LLMs
> lies immense conceptual and mathematical work — all done by mathematically
> gifted humans. I describe the mindset of such people in my paper
> https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/008998, including how the creators of
> ChatGPT arrived at the idea of representing language as a linear sequence
> of tokens. The idea to put all languages in a shared representational space
> is equally remarkable: that way they get everything (grammar, semantics,
> typology, etc.) for free, so to speak; data self-classify, and they can
> work even with pieces of data and in many languages simultaneously. Compare
> this with the linguistic approach: each language is described separately;
> we compare data only when (complete) language descriptions are ready, and
> the transfer of classificational features from language to language is not
> always obvious or smooth.
>
> As those of you who have read the paper mentioned above know, I was
> educated as a math-gifted student for ten years. What I do not mention in
> the paper is that my brain was trained for mathematical thinking at least
> five hours a day, every day except Sundays — yes, for ten years — to form
> the necessary neural connections. And yes, I learned university mathematics
> in my teens. A mathematically gifted child often hears three things:
>
> i) All problems are already solved in the real world; you only need to
> find the right analogy.
>
> ii) It is the belly that knows, not the head. Listen to your belly!
>
> iii) All problems have more than one solution.
>
> Allow me now to propose a short experiment related to the alleged
> “inhuman” way LLMs treat language — namely, by separating meaning and form.
> (By “separation” I mean only that the two aspects can be processed or
> represented independently for a while. By the mediation of the human brain,
> they both then appear meaningful.) The goal of the experiment is to make
> you experience the way of thinking of a math-gifted person and to
> demonstrate that there is an analogy to the ChatGPT approach to language in
> the real world.
>
> So, the task: Can you find an activity in the real world where form and
> meaning are separated, yet each can be reconstructed from the other? If you
> can, the separation of meaning and form is not alien to the human brain.
>
> Following the spirit of mathematical training — where there is always a
> time limit, including a period for full concentration (with a “no restroom”
> rule) — I propose the following:
>
> It is now November 9, 22:00 CET, and I am giving you two days (until
> November 11, 22:00 CET) to find the activity described in the task (it
> could be from any sphere of human life). During this period, I kindly ask
> that no messages be posted in this thread, so that we can all focus on the
> task (the “no restroom” rule does not apply).
>
> After the time limit elapses, we will collect our findings and discuss
> them. I have already solved the task (and mentioned the solution in an
> exchange with a well-known neurolinguist — I hope this does not spoil the
> experiment). On the third day, I will share my answer and look forward to
> hearing yours.
>
> I hope this demonstration will bring you closer to the thinking behind
> ChatGPT and show that there is nothing “dangerous” in the model — only a
> new, fascinating way of representing language grounded in the real world.
> (Think of the shared representational space as the Earth where all humans
> live.)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Stela / Gauss:AI Global
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>

-- 


*Fai crescere le giovani ricercatrici e i giovani ricercatori***

*con il 
5 per mille alla Sapienza*

Scrivi il codice fiscale dell'Università 
*80209930587
**Cinque per mille <https://www.uniroma1.it/it/node/23149>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251110/b011e5e1/attachment.htm>