←back to thread

724 points simonw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.273s | source
Show context
marcusb ◴[] No.44527530[source]
This reminds me in a way of the old Noam Chomsky/Tucker Carlson exchange where Chomsky says to Carlson:

  "I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting."
Simon may well be right - xAI might not have directly instructed Grok to check what the boss thinks before responding - but that's not to say xAI wouldn't be more likely to release a model that does agree with the boss a lot and privileges what he has said when reasoning.
replies(5): >>44528694 #>>44528695 #>>44528706 #>>44528766 #>>44529331 #
breppp ◴[] No.44528766[source]
and neither would Chomsky be interviewed by the BBC for his linguistic theory, if he hadn't held these edgy opinions
replies(2): >>44528838 #>>44529261 #
mattmanser ◴[] No.44528838[source]
The BBC will have multiple people with differing view points on however.

So while you're factually correct, you lie by omission.

Their attempts at presently a balanced view is almost to the point of absurdity these days as they were accused so often, and usually quite falsely, of bias.

replies(3): >>44528873 #>>44528897 #>>44532360 #
breppp ◴[] No.44528873[source]
I said BBC because as the other poster added, this was a BBC reporter rather than Carlson

Chomsky's entire argument is, that the reporter opinions are meaningless as he is part of some imaginary establishment and therefore he had to think that way.

That game goes both ways, Chomsky's opinions are only being given TV time as they are unusual.

I would venture more and say the only reason Chomsky holds these opinions is because of the academics preference for original thought rather than mainstream thought. As any repeat of an existing theory is worthless.

The problem is that in the social sciences that are not grounded in experiments, too much ungrounded original thought leads to academic conspiracy theories

replies(1): >>44529283 #
suddenlybananas ◴[] No.44529283[source]
Imaginary establishment? Do you think power doesn't exist?
replies(1): >>44530070 #
breppp ◴[] No.44530070[source]
power does exist, however foucault's theory of power as a metaphysical force pervading everyone's actions and thought is a conspiracy theory
replies(2): >>44531249 #>>44531648 #
suddenlybananas ◴[] No.44531249[source]
Chomsky was not a foucauldian at all and his criticisms are super far from foucault's ideas. You can watch the very famous debate they had to see how they differ.
replies(2): >>44531994 #>>44533133 #
1. Der_Einzige ◴[] No.44533133[source]
Chomsky is closer to Foucault than he will ever admit. Even critiquing critical theory/pomo shit from a position of "well you're relevent enough to talk to me, a god at CS" makes them seem like they are legit.

All the pomo/critical theory shit needs to be left in the dust bin of history and forgotten about. Don't engage with it. Don't say fo*calt's name (especially cus he's likely a pedo)

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-...

Try to pretend like you've never heard the word "Zizek" before. Let them die now please.