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.
Sure, if you think so, but discussing or arguing for/against those points here is far more interesting than the done-to-death stochastic parrot stuff.
I’m glad the article used the phrase because it was a useful indicator of the author’s underlying biases
I couldn't read past the first paragraph
> I mean, technically speaking, a video game from 1980 was likely to contain more logical branching points than a modern LLM's kernel, and was likely to be a lot more interesting to read.
Are you really saying that the "AI" in 1980 is _Really_ much more interesting than today's LLM? The author is either dishonest or ignorant.
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.