I didn't think Chomsky's NYT piece was very strongly argued (it seems a mish-mash of different points, some somewhat convincing and others quite unconvincing),

I didn't think Chomsky's NYT piece was very strongly argued (it seems a mish-mash of different points, some somewhat convincing and others quite unconvincing), but this is at least as bad. It starts off with a complete mischaracterization of Chomsky's research program (to imply that he is a disgruntled sore loser in the race to build machine intelligence) and then continues with a bogus analogy to imply Chomsky is a kind of deluded religious fanatic. Then it concludes with a note complaining that people don't trust the objectivity of the author's opinions now that he's employed by the entity he's defending - well, yes, of course they don't, that's the compromise you made when you decided to take Open AI's money.