I think this line discredits the entire article, which was already a few obvious points blown at gale force into the reader’s ear.
I think this line discredits the entire article, which was already a few obvious points blown at gale force into the reader’s ear.
> Saying, as the OpenAI CEO does[1], that we are all 'stochastic parrots' like large language models, statistical generators of learned patterns that express nothing deeper, is a form of nihilism. Of course, the elites don't apply that to themselves, just to the rest of us. The structural injustices and supremacist perspectives layered into AI put it firmly on the path of eugenicist solutions to social problems.
[1] Sam Altman: i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u
That this isn't even sentence-to-sentence consistent is somehow one of the less egregious aspects of it.
The author may find this discovery distasteful, but that is irrelevant: Islam is an idea, many ideas are associated with violence. Islam was famously “spread through the sword” and to this day violent retribution is often visited upon ex-Muslims by their families in the name of Islam. This isn’t hate speech: Islam is an idea that people adopt and leave, and not an innate quality. To treat any idea like an innate quality denies people the right to not accept the ideas of those around them.
It seems that, like ChatGPT, the author is also a bullshit generator, and therefore, by his own definition, unintelligent.
That is, I scattered commas where it felt natural to breathe.
Then, I edited it. Maybe, there was a non-essential clause in there. Also, possibly, there was an Oxford comma. Or maybe not! I’m not really clear about English grammar rules. But what this stochastic parrot says is usually intelligible to other English speakers.