We discuss the teaching of the discussion surrounding Bender and Koller's prominent ACL 2020 paper, "Climbing toward NLU: on meaning form, and understanding in the age of data" \cite{bender2020climbing}. We present what we understand to be the main contentions of the paper, and then recommend that the students engage with the natural counter-arguments to the claims in the paper. We attach teaching materials that we use to facilitate teaching this topic to undergraduate students.

Large-scale pretrained language models (LMs) are said to ``lack the ability to connect [their] utterances to the world'' (Bender and Koller, 2020). If so, we would expect LM representations to be unrelated to representations in computer vision models. To investigate this, we present an empirical evaluation across three different LMs (BERT, GPT2, and OPT) and three computer vision models (VMs, including ResNet, SegFormer, and MAE). Our experiments show that LMs converge towards representations that are partially isomorphic to those of VMs, with dispersion, and polysemy both factoring into the alignability of vision and language spaces. We discuss the implications of this finding.

In an effort to avoid reinforcing widespread hype about the capabilities of state-of-the-art language technology, researchers have developed practices in framing and citation that serve to deemphasize the field's successes. Though well-meaning, these practices often yield misleading or even false claims about the limits of our best technology. This is a problem, and it may be more serious than it looks: It limits our ability to mitigate short-term harms from NLP deployments and it limits our ability to prepare for the potentially enormous impacts of more distant future advances. This paper urges researchers to be careful about these claims and suggests some research directions and communication strategies that will make it easier to avoid or rebut them.