I don't understand what you're saying. I feel like I'm making an unusually engineering/science-based argument here: that the term "stochastic parrot" was introduced to describe a constellation of phenomenon that have been more or less decisively disproven, and that people continue to name-drop it as if it were a substantive argument when it's really pure vibes at this point.
It's interesting that you'd be choosing this canned phrase of all canned phrases, given just how hard that is linked to emotion-driven facebook comment fights that is.
This doesn't read like something that belongs into an engineering-driven discussion.