It is accurate to call it a parrot in the context of it essentially being used as ambiguated plagiarism machines to avoid paying workers.

Yes it is capable of that. Yes that word means something else in the actual field. But you need to understand people are talking about this technology as it's political relationships with power, and pretending prioritizing that form of analysis is well thats just people being uninformed about the REAL side and that's their fault is yourself missing the point. This isn't about pride and hurt feelings that a robot is doing something human do. It's about the fact it's a tool to undermine the entire value of the creative sector. And these big companies aren't calling it AI because it's an accurate descriptor. It could also be called a generative language model. They are calling it that because the common misunderstanding of the term is valuable to hype culture and VC investment. Like it or not, the average understanding of the term carries different weight than it does inside the field. And it turns the conversation into a pretty stupid one about sentience and humanity, as well as legitimizing the practice by trying to argue this is fundamentally unenforceable from the regulations we have on plagiarism, which it really isn't.

People who are trying to rebrand it aren't doing it because they misunderstand the technical usage of the word AI. They are arguing the terminology is playing into the goals of our (hopefully shared) political enemies, who are trying to bulldoze a technology that they think should get special privileges: by implying the technology is something it isn't. This is about optics and social power, and the term "AI" is contributing to further public misunderstand how it actually works, which is something we should oppose.

this has got to be trolling.

There really isn't much that can harm rich people that won't indirectly do splash damage on other people, just because their actions control so much of the economy that people depend on for survival.

I assume twitter blue offers other perks, that people might want without the shame of it being publicly known.

Folk. I don't think I'm some clever smarty-pants and I don't understand why I'm being talked to like I'm shitting on your mother's corpse.

I also don't understand how citing books that agree with and informed my position is evidence I'm making shit up. You seem determined to read me as a evil stupid troll.

I understand there's no point in arguing with people hostile to you. But I genuinely do not understand. This is not me trolling or trying to bait or trick you.

Medical gatekeeping through diagnosis has a long history that you clearly are sympathetic to with your early acknowledgement of how institutionally these experts somehow keep misdiagnosing things. And I'm sure you're also fully aware how entire medical diagnosis have been invented and uninvented for the purpose of persecution such as for hysterical women and blacks who ran away from slavery. I would argue we see that even today with how gender dysphoria diagnosis criteria has been used to gatekeep trans healthcare. This is not me being bad faith, and if you want me to dive deeper into this I can because it's a huge topic.

I understand if you think psyches are doing good shit by being on demand well informed people to help people understand themselves. I agree with you!

But most diagnosis really is 15 minutes of questions that's not a bad faith exaggeration. That's literally what it is. And then they give their opinion. And it is an opinion. Different equally qualified person will give an entirely different opinion

I don't know how to convince you I'm not some bad faith troll, and if that's really what you think I am you would should stop replying. What I am is someone who has seen how the medical diagnosis model abuses people. Tells them, especially women, that they don't know their own minds and experiences, and how it gatekeeps the poor who don't get the luxury to shop around until some doctor tells them what they needed to hear.

I don't think doctors should be ignored. But diagnosis is a deeply flawed system. It's neither accessible nor proven more accurate than the alternatives. It can do good, and it does do good. But revering it as if it is a hard science is absurd. It's not like getting a CAT scan for medical diagnosis. It is genuinely, just someone's opinion which they write so insurance will pay for treatment. And it doesn't claim to be more than that!

So why should someone who can't afford it, will be abused and ignored by such a system be required to be legitimized by it? Why do they need that to get the care they need? Why should people have to do that when their symptoms are self evident? So you really think the risk of letting people know themselves based off an informed consent system, is worse than the reality of medical gatekeeping? Do you really think it's killing fewer people than the alternative? What if they live somewhere where they isn't an option? What if their family refuses to have them seen? Why add these barriers?

Why aren't they allowed to be legitimate? Why aren't they allowed to get care?

Do you actually have any evidence that gatekeeping mental illness behind diagnosis does more good than the harm?

Are people really still convincing themselves this is a 5D chess move.

After everything else, are we still doing that?

Roger that, see yah

I did not say to ignore them. I said they are not a required authority on the subject.

Having people who are informed about this stuff help people recognize this from a 3rd party perspective is good, and doctors can do that

I'm honestly not understanding what you're trying to say here. But I guess that's okay. I at least can pick up the condescension and contempt.

The process of diagnosis when it involves actual testing is legitimate. Which does include ADHD. Provided your comfortable gatekeeping it behind only people who can pay hundreds of dollars for neuropsyche testing.

But the process where it concerns anxiety, depression and bipolar? It's not. These do not have any biomarkers in diagnosis, and psychiatrists are not actually experts at identifying this stuff by asking a handful of questions for 15 minutes. Their years of training doesn't make them have some magical ability to identify a soup of random incoherent symptoms accurately, and they are not significantly more accurate than moderately well informed patients at identifying themselves. That's why people are so commonly misdiagnosed. It's literally just the person's opinion. And you shop around for the right opinion. Then they actually diagnosis you with whatever is required to get the insurance to pay for the medicine. That's what diagnosis actually is. It's a paper to have insurance pay for medical care. And it is not science.

Some books on the subject if you want more authoritative sourcing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817669/

https://www.bps.org.uk/member-networks/division-clinical-psychology/power-threat-meaning-framework

I think we mostly agree, given you acknowledge misdiagnosis is rampant within psychiatry. Is it rather that you see the DSM itself as legitimate, and doctor are just misunderstanding it which causes misdiagnosis?

Nah I'm championing it. I've spent decades in this system and worked with people who do the diagnosing. Your position of reverence for the process of diagnosis or the authority of those doing diagnosis is not well founded. People who are too poor to get diagnosed are still needing help regardless of wheather an academic has weighted in on the subject. Diagnosis is an opinion, to get insurance to pay for healthcare. That's all it is. I can recommend you some books on the subject if you actually care to learn more about the topic of how diagnosis actually works.

You seem to think the issue with people adopting socialist beliefs is branding.

But it really, really isn't.