I worry that the "stochastic parrot" was premature, an idea sown early in development that will now carry along through any advances made.
Basically there is this innate idea that if the basic building blocks are simple systems with deterministic behavior, then the greater system can never be more than that. I've seen this is spades within the AI community, "It's just matrix multiplication! It's not capable of thinking or feeling!"
Which to me always felt more like a hopeful statement rather than a factual one. These guys have no idea what consciousness is (nobody does) nor have any reference point for what exactly is "thinking" or "feeling". They can't prove I'm not a stochastic parrot anymore than they can prove whatever cutting edge LLM isn't.
So while yes, present LLMs likely are just stochastic parrots, the same technology scaled might bring us a model that actually is "something that is something to be like", and we'll have everyone treating it with reckless carelessness because "its just a stochastic parrot".
Basically there is this innate idea that if the basic building blocks are simple systems with deterministic behavior, then the greater system can never be more than that. I've seen this is spades within the AI community, "It's just matrix multiplication! It's not capable of thinking or feeling!"
Which to me always felt more like a hopeful statement rather than a factual one. These guys have no idea what consciousness is (nobody does) nor have any reference point for what exactly is "thinking" or "feeling". They can't prove I'm not a stochastic parrot anymore than they can prove whatever cutting edge LLM isn't.
So while yes, present LLMs likely are just stochastic parrots, the same technology scaled might bring us a model that actually is "something that is something to be like", and we'll have everyone treating it with reckless carelessness because "its just a stochastic parrot".