Abstract
In Chomsky's provocative critique "The False Promise of CHATGPT," Large Language Models (LLMs) are characterized as mere pattern predictors that do not acquire languages via intrinsic causal and self-correction structures like humans, therefore are not able to distinguish impossible languages. It stands as a representative in a fundamental challenge to the intellectual foundations of AI, for it integrally synthesizes major issues in methodologies within LLMs and possesses an iconic a priori rationalist perspective. We examine this famous critique from both the perspective in pre-existing literature of linguistics and psychology as well as a research based on an experiment inquiring into the capacity of learning both possible and impossible languages among LLMs. We constructed a set of syntactically impossible languages by applying certain transformations to English. These include reversing whole sentences, and adding negation based on word-count parity. Two rounds of controlled experiments were each conducted on GPT-2 small models and long short-term memory (LSTM) models. Statistical analysis (Welch's t-test) shows GPT2 small models underperform in learning all of the impossible languages compared to their performance on the possible language (p<.001). On the other hand, LSTM models' performance tallies with Chomsky's argument, suggesting the irreplaceable role of the evolution of transformer architecture. Based on theoretical analysis and empirical findings, we propose a new vision within Chomsky's theory towards LLMs, and a shift of theoretical paradigm outside Chomsky, from his "rationalist-romantics" paradigm to functionalism and empiricism in LLMs research.