Large Language Model probabilities cannot distinguish between possible and impossible language

A controversial test for Large Language Models concerns the ability to discern possible from impossible language. While some evidence attests to the models' sensitivity to what crosses the limits of grammatically impossible language, this evidence has been contested on the grounds of the soundness of the testing material. We use model-internal representations to tap directly into the way Large Language Models represent the 'grammatical-ungrammatical' distinction. In a novel benchmark, we elicit probabilities from 4 models and compute minimal-pair surprisal differences, juxtaposing probabilities assigned to grammatical sentences to probabilities assigned to (i) lower frequency grammatical sentences, (ii) ungrammatical sentences, (iii) semantically odd sentences, and (iv) pragmatically odd sentences. The prediction is that if string-probabilities can function as proxies for the limits of grammar, the ungrammatical condition will stand out among the conditions that involve linguistic violations, showing a spike in the surprisal rates. Our results do not reveal a unique surprisal signature for ungrammatical prompts, as the semantically and pragmatically odd conditions consistently show higher surprisal. We thus demonstrate that probabilities do not constitute reliable proxies for model-internal representations of syntactic knowledge. Consequently, claims about models being able to distinguish possible from impossible language need verification through a different methodology.

Language in Vivo vs. in Silico: Size Matters but Larger Language Models Still Do Not Comprehend Language on a Par with Humans

Understanding the limits of language is a prerequisite for Large Language Models (LLMs) to act as theories of natural language. LLM performance in some language tasks presents both quantitative and qualitative differences from that of humans, however it remains to be determined whether such differences are amenable to model size. This work investigates the critical role of model scaling, determining whether increases in size make up for such differences between humans and models. We test three LLMs from different families (Bard, 137 billion parameters; ChatGPT-3.5, 175 billion; ChatGPT-4, 1.5 trillion) on a grammaticality judgment task featuring anaphora, center embedding, comparatives, and negative polarity. N=1,200 judgments are collected and scored for accuracy, stability, and improvements in accuracy upon repeated presentation of a prompt. Results of the best performing LLM, ChatGPT-4, are compared to results of n=80 humans on the same stimuli. We find that increased model size may lead to better performance, but LLMs are still not sensitive to (un)grammaticality as humans are. It seems possible but unlikely that scaling alone can fix this issue. We interpret these results by comparing language learning in vivo and in silico, identifying three critical differences concerning (i) the type of evidence, (ii) the poverty of the stimulus, and (iii) the occurrence of semantic hallucinations due to impenetrable linguistic reference.