[daishi55]

My criticism centers on the part of the paper they chose for their title, the “stochastic parrot” metaphor. And my criticism is that if you observe Claude code with opus 4.8 working through an entirely novel problem that nobody has ever worked on before and which certainly wasn’t in its training data, the choice to even metaphorically call them stochastic parrots turned out to be egregiously wrong.

And secondarily, and maybe only partially the authors’ fault, is the enormous tidal wave of morons that this paper minted who plague us with their misunderstandings to this day.

[dwa3592]

oh boy! the lack of critical thinking here is staggering.

>>And my criticism is that if you observe Claude code with opus 4.8 working through an entirely novel problem that nobody has ever worked on before and which certainly wasn’t in its training data, the choice to even metaphorically call them stochastic parrots turned out to be egregiously wrong.

First of all, for your own benefit - Claude code stopped showing the real reasoning. It only shows a summarized version of it now. So don't ever ask someone to observe the model. Second, do you know when this paper came out? do you know when opus 4.8 came out??? how do you know what is novel? did opus 4.8 tell you it was novel? how do you know no one has worked on it before?

[daishi55]

I strongly suspect my critical thinking skills are better than yours.

For example, note my use of the phrase “turned out” and then consider whether your main point about the release date of plus 4.8 vs the paper makes any sense at all?

> how do you know what is novel?

Because I work on novel ASICs that were created by my company and have never been used or seen outside of my company?