[williamsmj]

> this article is slanted trash, its sources haters who have only one, incredibly repetitive thing to say about AI, and the author is a hater.

It doesn't "source haters". It quotes MIT Tech Review and Gary Marcus precisely in order to provide context for the subject of the “article” (blog post): LeCun's bizarre "this is why we can't have nice things" statement. This petulant remark seeks to shut down negative feedback as a class, regardless of its merits. That's what the blog post is about. The quotes are there so that the quote from LeCun makes sense, not because they're legitimate criticism.

> Emily Bender, Grady Booch...

These people are not mentioned in the linked post, which tells me you're pattern matching on "techlash" and posting a bunch of only vaguely related context (and a medium self-link).

> He should probably should stay chill.

Exactly?! That's the point of the blog post. It's in the title of the article. It seems obviously true, and I'm not sure how any of what you say adds up to a robust conclusion that "the article is slanted trash" and "the author (Andrew Gelman?!?!) is a hater" other than you don't like some of the quotes.

> and in the past he was very deferential to these folks, and even left Twitter for a while

How many times has he quit Twitter now? Three IIRC. Seems like he needs some coaching on the following through with promises.

[seydor]

The article they quote from,

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/18/1063487/meta-lar...

Twitter-quotes both of them and others

[williamsmj]

Yes I know. They are irrelevant to the point of Gelman’s blog post, which is why he doesn’t mention them. I assume they’re being brought up here out of some kind of guilt by association thing, or to make the self-link seem more on topic.

[seydor]

50% of TFA is quotations fromt he TR article

[williamsmj]

Yes. To provide the context necessary to understand the "this is why we can't have nice things" quote, you have to say what "this" is. That's how pronouns work.