Fictionalism about Chatbots.Fintan Mallory -2023 -Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 10.detailsAccording to widely accepted views in metasemantics, the outputs of chatbots and other artificial text generators should be meaningless. They aren’t produced with communicative intentions and the systems producing them are not following linguistic conventions. Nevertheless, chatbots have assumed roles in customer service and healthcare, they are spreading information and disinformation and, in some cases, it may be more rational to trust the outputs of bots than those of our fellow human beings. To account for the epistemic role of chatbots (...) in our society, we need to reconcile these observations. This paper argues that our engagement with chatbots should be understood as a form of prop-oriented make-believe; the outputs of chatbots are literally meaningless but fictionally meaningful. With the make-believe approach, we can understand how chatbots can provide us with knowledge of the world through quasi-testimony while preserving our metasemantic theories. This account also helps to connect the study of chatbots with the epistemology of scientific instruments. (shrink)
No categories
Linguistic types are capacity-individuated action-types.Fintan Mallory -2020 -Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 63 (9-10):1123-1148.detailsABSTRACT This paper is concerned with the ontological status of linguistic types. According to a widely held view, linguistic types are abstract objects that are instantiated or represented by tokens. The same types might be tokened by both speech, signing and text. This view has implications for how we consider what it is to know a language since knowledge of language is typically taken to be knowledge of linguistic types. We argue below that linguistic types are not abstract objects but (...) action-types and that these action-types are individuated by the capacities that they manifest. The picture that results from this view is that to know a language is to have the capacities required to perform these action-types. (shrink)
In Defence of a Reciprocal Turing Test.Fintan Mallory -2020 -Minds and Machines 30 (4):659-680.detailsThe traditional Turing test appeals to an interrogator's judgement to determine whether or not their interlocutor is an intelligent agent. This paper argues that this kind of asymmetric experimental set-up is inappropriate for tracking a property such as intelligence because intelligence is grounded in part by symmetric relations of recognition between agents. In place, it proposes a reciprocal test which takes into account the judgments of both interrogators and competitors to determine if an agent is intelligent. This form of social (...) interaction better tracks both the evolution of natural intelligence and how the concept of intelligence is actually used within our society. This new test is defended against the criticisms that a proof of intelligence requires a demonstration of self-consciousness and that semantic externalism entails that a non-embodied Turing test is inadequate. (shrink)
The Case Against Linguistic Palaeontology.Fintan Mallory -2020 -Topoi 40 (1):273-284.detailsThe method of linguistic palaeontology has a controversial status within archaeology. According to its defenders, it promises the ability to see into the social and material cultures of prehistoric societies and uncover facts about peoples beyond the reach of archaeology. Its critics see it as essentially flawed and unscientific. Using a particular case-study, the Indo-European homeland problem, this paper attempts to discern the kinds of inference which proponents of linguistic palaeontology make and whether they can be warranted. I conclude that, (...) while the case for linguistic palaeontology has often been overstated, so has the case against it. (shrink)
Online Communication: Problems and Prospects.Fintan Mallory &Eliot Michaelson -2024 -Philosophy 99 (3):409-412.detailsFor billions of people, the internet has become a second home. It is where we meet friends and strangers, where we organise and learn, debate, deceive, and do business. In some respects, it is like the town square it was once claimed to be, while in others, it provides a strange new mode of interaction whose influence on us we are yet to understand. This collection of papers aims to give a short indication of some of the exciting philosophical work (...) being carried out at the moment that addresses the novel aspects of online communication. The topics range from the expressive functions of emoji to the oppressive powers of search engines. (shrink)
Generative Linguistics and the Computational Level.Fintan Mallory -2024 -Croatian Journal of Philosophy 24 (71):195-218.detailsGenerative linguistics is widely claimed to produce theories at the level of computation in the sense outlined by David Marr. Marr even used generative grammar as an example of a computational level theory. At this level, a theory specifi es a function for mapping one kind of information into another. How this function is computed is then specified at the algorithmic level before an account of how this is algorithm is realised by some physical system is presented at the implementation (...) level. This paper will argue that generative linguistics does not fit anywhere within this framework. We will then look at several ways researchers have attempted to modify either the framework of generative theory to reconcile the two approaches. Finally, it presents and discusses an alternative position, anti-realism about generative grammar. While this position has attracted some recent support, it also runs into some of the problems that earlier modifications faced. (shrink)
No categories
Why is Generative Grammar Recursive?Fintan Mallory -2023 -Erkenntnis 88 (7):3097-3111.detailsA familiar argument goes as follows: natural languages have infinitely many sentences, finite representation of infinite sets requires recursion; therefore any adequate account of linguistic competence will require some kind of recursive device. The first part of this paper argues that this argument is not convincing. The second part argues that it was not the original reason recursive devices were introduced into generative linguistics. The real basis for the use of recursive devices stems from a deeper philosophical concern; a grammar (...) that functions merely as a metalanguage would not be explanatorily adequate as it would merely push the problem of explaining linguistic competence back to another level. The paper traces this concern from Zellig Harris and Chomsky’s early work in generative linguistics and presents some implications. (shrink)