I think you misunderstood. I don’t believe calling LLMs “stochastic parrots” is accurate, but I think that dismissing them as such puts them at the same level as astrology, in the sense that both would be useless in order to predict an outcome based purely on their inputs.
In other words, I do think that LLMs have some value to them, even when issues like “hallucinations” will never be resolved.
On the other hand, I don’t think astrology is valuable at all. There hasn’t been a single accurate prediction made by astrologers that could be replicated within the same conditions at a different time. Descriptions of phenomena in astrology are also deliberately vague, so they could be “massaged” to fit the outcomes. Astrology is, at its core and necessarily, post hoc, so suggesting that it is a misunderstood discipline based on actual science is just naive.
I think you misunderstood. I don’t believe calling LLMs “stochastic parrots” is accurate, but I think that dismissing them as such puts them at the same level as astrology, in the sense that both would be useless in order to predict an outcome based purely on their inputs.
In other words, I do think that LLMs have some value to them, even when issues like “hallucinations” will never be resolved.
On the other hand, I don’t think astrology is valuable at all. There hasn’t been a single accurate prediction made by astrologers that could be replicated within the same conditions at a different time. Descriptions of phenomena in astrology are also deliberately vague, so they could be “massaged” to fit the outcomes. Astrology is, at its core and necessarily, post hoc, so suggesting that it is a misunderstood discipline based on actual science is just naive.