This affordability is HEAVILY subsidized by billionaires who want to destroy institutions for selfish and ideological reasons.
Every large enough corporate wants to become the new Oracle.
(By the way, are you confusing affordance, the UX concept, with affordability?)
I see some problems with the above comment. First, using the phrase “stochastic parrot” in a dismissive way reflects a misunderstanding of the original paper [1]. The authors themselves do not weaponize the phrase; the paper was about deployment risks, not capability ceilings. I encourage everyone people who use the phase to go re-read the paper and make sure they can articulate what the paper claims and be able to distinguish that from their usage.
Second, what does the comment mean by “fix that, and the parrot falls off the perch.”? I don't know. I think it would need to be reframed in a concrete direction if we want to discuss it productively. If the commenter can make a claim or prediction of the "If-Then" form, then we'd have some basis for discussion.
Third, regarding "eagerness to please"... this comes from fine-tuning. Even without it (RLHP or similar) LLMs have significant prediction capabilities from pretraining (the base model).
All in all, I can't tell if the comment is making a claim I can't parse and/or one I disagree with.
[1]: "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?" (Bender et al., 2021)
ZIRP, Covid, Anti-nuclear power, immigration crisis across the west, debt enslavement of future generations to buy votes, socializing losses and privatizing gains... Nancy is a better investor than Warren.
I am not defending billionaires, the vast majority of them are grifting scum. But to put this at their feet is not the right level of analysis when the institutions themselves are actively working to undermine the populace for the benefit of those that are supposed to be stewards of said institutions.