| ▲ | girvo 2 hours ago | |
I really wish the article in question hadn’t used that phrase, because you’re right. But the rest of the article is also correct in the dangers facing us from this technology as an accelerant regardless, and I think it’s much more interesting to talk about that: but this entire comment thread will dunk on the stochastic parrot paragraphs instead. The funny thing is though, I think it’s an in group signalling mechanism. You need the anti-AI crowd to know that you’re anti-AI, and this is a rapid way of doing so, to get it upvoted here. | ||
| ▲ | hbcdbff an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
I’m glad the article used the phrase because it was a useful indicator of the author’s underlying biases | ||
| ▲ | user43928 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
The article is extremist nonsense where the author argues billions are going to die due to climate change in the next decades, and that Altman and Musk are hoping AI can until then replace human labor in order to keep their living standard in such a future. It's not like the "stochastic parrot" thing was the only problem here. | ||