作者批评了围绕大型语言模型（LLM）的重复和缺乏原创性的论点，将支持者比作“鹦鹉助推者”。他们对反复出现的辩论和扼杀创新的监管提案感到沮丧，质疑围绕AI的讨论的真实性。 AI
排序理由 该条目是一篇表达对LLM和AI看法的社交媒体帖子，缺乏新的事实信息或重要的行业事件。
在 Mastodon — mastodon.social 阅读 →
AI 生成摘要 · Google Gemini · 来自 1 个来源。 我们如何撰写摘要 →
作者批评关于LLM和AI监管的重复性论点
本文如何被排名
- Signal score
- 0 / 100
- Composite score across the factors below. Higher = stronger signal that this story matters right now.
- Newsworthiness bucket
- Meme
- 该条目是一篇表达对LLM和AI看法的社交媒体帖子，缺乏新的事实信息或重要的行业事件。
- Source corroboration
- Single-source cluster
- Only one publisher covered this so far. Single-source stories can still rank when the publisher is high-authority, but they lack cross-source corroboration.
- Topics
- opinion
- Editorial topic classification. Feeds into how the story surfaces on /topic/<slug> hub pages and into the per-entity coverage mix.
- AI-industry relevance
- Standard
- On-topic for AI-industry coverage; kept in the public index.
- Story freshness
- Breaking (< 6h)
- Fresh story with cross-source coverage still developing. Ranking may shift as more sources report.
完整方法见我们的编辑标准。
报道来源 [1]
-
我们确实一直在谈论#LLM是随机鹦鹉。为什么没人谈论这些技术的鹦鹉助推器？我的意思是，你会发现同样的狗屁论点被嚼来嚼去
We do keep talking about # LLM as stochastic parrots. Why does nobody talk about parrot boosters of these tech? I mean, you find the same crap arguments re-chewed again and again, up to the “let’s regulate and don’t do new models for n units of time” shit. Or at that talking hand…