I think they're pointing to the fact that RLHF means that the intention is from humans and not random.

I'm not sure if it's their intent, but I wonder if one could still consider these artifacts as "intentional", but not individual attention creating them, and rather an aggregate, soupy collective attention.

Obviously, important signal in the human experience is lost there, and we get a soupy middling sort of creation. But it's not random, as I believe the parent was pointing out.

EDIT: overall, I align with the article. am just thinking aloud about the contrarian positions, though not committed to them