Another void argument, we're speaking about tools, dogs are not tools
I've used this argument for real in the past with people who complain that it's unethical to set sightless people up with vision LLM tools because those tools are unreliable and make mistakes. My counter is that a) so are guide dogs and b) it's rude to discount the agency of people with accessibility needs in evaluating and selecting tools for themselves.
It's still OK to use dogs as an analogy. In this case the analogy is to unreliable tools, and dogs are unreliable tools.
I don't find "stochastic parrot" offensive as an analogy, even though it's got parrots in it.
If not, why not?
Is it because the parrot analogy is directly critical of LLMs, while the dog one is more of an excuse for their failings?