I didn't say it's not a probabilistic word generator. I'll quote more of what I wrote:
>There are clearly different angles of interpreting what these models are actually doing but people are stubbornly refusing to believe it's anything more then just statistical word jumbles.
So CLEARLY because I said there are different angles of interpretation I'm implying that from one of these angles we can interpret it as a statistical word generator.
I mean from one perspective you and I are both statistical word generators too.
>There are clearly different angles of interpreting what these models are actually doing but people are stubbornly refusing to believe it's anything more then just statistical word jumbles.
So CLEARLY because I said there are different angles of interpretation I'm implying that from one of these angles we can interpret it as a statistical word generator.
I mean from one perspective you and I are both statistical word generators too.