Read the article above. There is a link at the top of this submission to an essay by Peter Norvig, arguing (correctly, in retrospect) that Chomsky's approach to language modelling is mistaken.
Obviously I did read the article. And I know how the hn site works.
I have a passing familiarity with the debate over Chomsky's theories of universal grammar etc. I didn't notice anything in the article that would cause disgust, and so I wondered what I was failing to understand.
If you have read many books by Chomsky, it might make you angry that you have wasted so much time on what turned out to be a fundamentally mistaken theory.
His russian imperialism support and his broad rejection of the eastern european civilian uprising against the communist project. Like many idealists he took a utopian, idealizing view and ran with it reality and real suffering caused be damned. Like many idealists he offered basically a API for sociopaths to be hijacked and used as a useful idiot against humanity. This way predictable leads to ruin and ashes as legacy and it did so for him. The epstein connection is just the cherry on top.
Sounds like bit of an over-reaction if I am being honest.
Some of his books are deeply insightful even if you decide to draw the opposite conclusion. I wouldn’t say anything would create disgust unless you had a conclusion you wanted supported before reading the book.
Regarding the Epstein thing, bizarre to bring that up when discussing his works, seems like you hate him on a personal level.
Pretty massive stretch making that inference based on the data don’t you think? Or is this an underhand way to get back at someone you disagree with politically?
Read the article above. There is a link at the top of this submission to an essay by Peter Norvig, arguing (correctly, in retrospect) that Chomsky's approach to language modelling is mistaken.
Obviously I did read the article. And I know how the hn site works.
I have a passing familiarity with the debate over Chomsky's theories of universal grammar etc. I didn't notice anything in the article that would cause disgust, and so I wondered what I was failing to understand.
If you have read many books by Chomsky, it might make you angry that you have wasted so much time on what turned out to be a fundamentally mistaken theory.
The people who downvoted this apparently didn't read the article.
His russian imperialism support and his broad rejection of the eastern european civilian uprising against the communist project. Like many idealists he took a utopian, idealizing view and ran with it reality and real suffering caused be damned. Like many idealists he offered basically a API for sociopaths to be hijacked and used as a useful idiot against humanity. This way predictable leads to ruin and ashes as legacy and it did so for him. The epstein connection is just the cherry on top.
Sounds like bit of an over-reaction if I am being honest.
Some of his books are deeply insightful even if you decide to draw the opposite conclusion. I wouldn’t say anything would create disgust unless you had a conclusion you wanted supported before reading the book.
Regarding the Epstein thing, bizarre to bring that up when discussing his works, seems like you hate him on a personal level.
I think it is fair to hate pedophiles.
Pretty massive stretch making that inference based on the data don’t you think? Or is this an underhand way to get back at someone you disagree with politically?