I think framework’d say that those are not a good way to test grammaticality since meaning differs (which seems good). But that since grammaticality is constant that the prob difference in those cases would correspond to the plausibility diff from the substitution (also seems good?).

I should also say....this is, in many ways, a confounding thing for studying grammaticality with humans too! I am optimistic that the account in here will be useful for thinking about minimal pairs theoretically, not just for LMs but for human ling and psycholing.

Right “good way to solve problems“ as in object permanence, color properties, etc that could be said to be useful in general for any agent who has goals they have to achieve in an environment. not just useful for humans

Imo work in bayesian cognition, rational analysis etc suggest that at least some concepts humans have exist because they are good ways to solve those problems in general. That’s maybe a point for “same concepts”. But I guess if the resources and constraints are very different all bets are off.…

Thanks, didn't know the history of his later life. Deleted and re-posted to omit.

Austin is a lovely city, and the department is wonderful and supportive. I've had a great experience here.

As you can see in the ad, the scope of what we are looking for is broad.

Happy to discuss this position or Ph.D. positions at #COLM2025 or offline!

Austin is a lovely city, and the department is wonderful and supportive. I've had a great experience.

As you can see in the ad, the scope of we're looking for construe as computational linguistics is broad.

Happy to chat at #COLM2025 or offline about this faculty position and/or Ph.D. positions!

And also @sriramp05.bsky.social at the PragLM Workshop! arxiv.org/html/2504.09...