"Camp stochastic parrot"? HN is looking more and more like 4chan.
Maybe we should petition dang to allow memes to be posted and get it over with.
Maybe we should petition dang to allow memes to be posted and get it over with.
Seriously though, "stochastic parrot" is not a 4chan type of meme, it's the "industry term of art" kind of meme.
it's been used 6 times on /g/ and almost all are mocking the term -- with one calling people stochastic parrots (haha)
Meanwhile it's been cited 1200 or so times.
>> "Camp stochastic parrot"? HN is looking more and more like 4chan.
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35451667)
Then I clarified that:
>> I'm talking about your trying to split comments into camps.
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35451944)
Not that "stochastic parrots" is a 4chan thing. The polarised debate with "us" vs. "them" is what reminds me of 4chan. And not just 4chan, it's how people generally behave on the internet: it's always "us" vs "them" and there's no space for interesting conversation.
Extreme Polarization in debate FAR easily predates imageboards and even USENET, vi vs emacs probably harkens back to some of the earliest messages on DARPANET (ok, probably the text editor wars were close to a decade later, because i think it was more like the "ed" vs "god do we have anything else" era, but you get the idea -- i'm sadly not old enough to know the details of this golden era)
or look upon ye olde days of Slashdot trolling (some netcraftian oracles say that BSD is still, indeed, dying)
if you really do want to track the modern internet manifestation back you have to go back before 4chan. We'd have to talk about SA and GBS vs FYAD, and some of the earlier predecessors of SA such as.... Maddox.. and others, i guess? I can't think of other sites, only other names.
In any case - don't give 4chan credit where it's undue. Us vs Them goes back a long, long while, perhaps even pre-internet!
Anyway, what's with the assumptions? "Lad"? A lad named YeGoblynQueenne? Not that there isn't precedent for that sort of thing [1], but, let's not jump to conclusions.
______________
Allegedly, HN is a place to hold curious conversation. What is curious in attempting to explain a comment as coming from a certain "camp"? Isn't that just going to polarise conversations and shut down any curious discussion?
> You can be in many camps at once, there is more than two camps and they don't have to be necessarily adversarial towards each other either. However, if you think that LLMs are just stochastic parrots then that probably guides a lot of other arguments and lines of thinking.
We are a long ways off from a flame war and 4chan here.
Making this sort of assumption about your interlocutor deprives the discussion of any kind of interest it would have. It's like we have seen that match before and we know what each side is going to say, so what's the point in debating anything? Everyone's convinced, everyone's stuck in their little corner, and calling each other group-names.
More to the point, it makes people reply not to each other, but to the views they assume the other person holds, which never leads to productive conversation, only to confusion and chaos.
There has to be a way to debate that doesn't involve picking an enemy to fight.
it's been used 6 times on /g/ -- 3/6 are mocking the term, 1/6 is calling people stochastic parrots (haha), and 2/6 are using it in the sense you're implying.
So not really a 4chan type thing. It's been cited by other papers apparently 200x more than it's been posted there.