> For years, despite functional evidence and scientific hints accumulating, certain AI researchers continued to claim LLMs were stochastic parrots: probabilistic machines that would: 1. NOT have any representation about the meaning of the prompt. 2. NOT have any representation about what they were going to say. In 2025 finally almost everybody stopped saying so.

It's interesting that Terrence Tao just released his own blog post stating that they're best viewed as stochastic generators. True he's not an AI researcher, but it does sound like he's using AI frequently with some success.

"viewing the current generation of such tools primarily as a stochastic generator of sometimes clever - and often useful - thoughts and outputs may be a more productive perspective when trying to use them to solve difficult problems" [0].

[0] https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/115722360006034040

▲

jdub a day ago | parent | next [-]

I get the impression that folks who have a strong negative reaction to the phrase "stochastic parrot" tend to do so because they interpret it literally or analogously (revealed in their arguments against it), when it is most useful as a metaphor.

(And, in some cases, a desire to deny the people and perspectives from which the phrase originated.)

▲

antirez 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What happened recently is that all the serious AI researches that were in the stochastic parrot side changed point of view but, incredibly, people without a deep understanding on such matters, previously exposed to such arguments, are lagging behind and still repeat arguments that the people who popularized them would not repeat again.

Today there is no top AI scientist that will tell you LLMs are just stochastic parrots.

	▲	emp17344 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You seem to think the debate is settled, but that’s far from true. It’s oddly controlling to attempt to discredit any opposition to this viewpoint. There’s plenty of research supporting the stochastic view of these models, such as Apple’s “Illusion” papers. Tao is also a highly respected researcher, and has worked with these models at a very high level - his viewpoint has merit as well.
	▲	visarga 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The stochastic parrot framing makes some assumptions, one of them being that LLMs generate from minimal input prompts, like "tell me about Transformers" or "draw a cute dog". But when input provides substantial entropy or novelty, the output will not look like any training data. And longer sessions with multiple rounds of messages also deviate OOD. The model is doing work outside its training distribution. It's like saying pianos are not creative because they don't make music. Well, yes, you have to play the keys to hear the music, and transformers are no exception. You need to put in your unique magic input to get something new and useful.
	▲	geraneum 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Now that you’re here, what do you mean by “scientific hints” in your first paragraph?