I'm sorry, but if you create an NLP product and Chomsky says you missed the mark, you missed the mark. He practically admits to how far ahead of his time Chomsk

I'm sorry, but if you create an NLP product and Chomsky says you missed the mark, you missed the mark. He practically admits to how far ahead of his time Chomsky was, but then somehow tries to mischaracterize it as a bad thing: In this piece Chomsky, the intellectual godfather of an effort that failed for 60 years to build machines that can converse in ordinary language, condemns the effort that succeeded. Have you had a real conversation with ChatGPT? As in a "trying to extract factual information from another entity" conversation? I'll answer for you: no, because ChatGPT is generative (it's in the name) of apparently valid syntax with consistent meaning, but it's not extractive in nature and does not wield denotation behind-the-scenes. "Converse" means a lot more than "vomit words in a proper order at each other". By that alone, it has not "succeeded" in conversing, just arranging terms convincingly (using Chomsky's theories to do so.) I encourage anybody who believes otherwise to read this paper before continuing to posit that ChatGPT is doing anything more: https://www.philosophy-index.com/russell/on-denoting/Russell_-_On_Denoting.pdf https://www.philosophy-index.com/russell/on-denoting/Russell...