Current topic aside, I feel like that stochastic parrots paper aged really poorly in its criticisms of LLMs, and reading it felt like political propaganda with its exaggerated rhetoric and its anemic amount of scientific substance e.g.
> Text generated by an LM is not grounded in communicative
intent, any model of the world, or any model of the reader’s state
of mind. It can’t have been, because the training data never included sharing thoughts with a listener, nor does the machine have
the ability to do that.
I'm surprised its cited so much given how many of its claims fell flat 1.5 years later
It's extremely easy to publish in NLP right now. 20-30% acceptance rates at even the top end conferences and plenty of tricks to increase your chances. Just because someone is first author on a highly cited paper doesn't imply that they're "right"
> Text generated by an LM is not grounded in communicative intent, any model of the world, or any model of the reader’s state of mind. It can’t have been, because the training data never included sharing thoughts with a listener, nor does the machine have the ability to do that.
I'm surprised its cited so much given how many of its claims fell flat 1.5 years later