Reposted by Cyrus Æ
I reposted this, but tacking itonto this thread as well bc I think it's useful context. Margaret was also a co-author of the Stochastic Parrots paper and recently offered some thoughts on which parts of the analogy hold up (and which have been widely misunderstood): medium.com/@margarmitch...
medium.com
No, “AI” is not a Stochastic Parrot 🦜
I’ve recently come across a new flavor of AI denialism making the rounds.
![Research [25] shows that people [26] enjoy the feeling of winning games [3,5,19]. Enjoying things can lead to longer life expectancy [2], higher economic productivity [9,22,33-40,302] and improve mental health [9]. Yet many games still include losing players [67,4]. A recent study showed that less than half of the players in a Chess [1] match win on average [42]. We have developed an LLM-driven co-creative [66], user-led [11], mixed-initiative [80] assistant for Chess [2], through which players can redefine the rules of Chess [3] using generative AI prompting such that they are the winner of Chess [4]. A study (n=3) showed that 100\% of people felt better, healthier and more self-actualised after using our tool, showing that this may be the way forward for games and human culture more broadly in the future.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:h5kgtr755iczaqxomeh2pmh7/bafkreicu2p2o3is64z5k37n222hgahp67ssca6ro3nggbjtpwasig2zzbi)
