mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2309.05918 ↗First posted 12 Sep 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 na-ture, 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 ambi-guities, intensional contexts. Since we believe the relative success of data-driven large language models (LLMs) is not a reflection on the symbolic vs. subsymbol-ic 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.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Sep 2023.

Builds on

3 of 31 references.

References · 3

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2019Distributional Semantics and Linguistic Theorycited by 53
  3. 2023On Degrees of Freedom in Defining and Testing Natural Language Understandingcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 4; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

9 papers.