It’s almost as if the article should put the term in quotes, since they’re using the term to refer to the way Vance describes his ancestry…

Sure, the truth is unclear, but those are, at least the admitted facts. I think it’s too early to use this case to try to claim that search-based AI is categorically better than ChatGPT, which was the point I was making.

It also kind of highlights that the problems of generative AI hallucinations aren’t restricted to use-cases with no internet access.

If you read the article it appears that the barrister in question was using AI results summaries from search engines, not understanding that those “results” were AI generated. She didn’t actually use ChatGPT or other chat platforms. So while important, in this case, the distinction is irrelevant.

That is, cognition is “complex” because the physiology of what happens doesn’t cleanly correspond to the way we’d describe our own thinking. It’s unclear, though, why these two descriptions of the “same” process must have any explanatory overlap.

But, if you accept, as neuroscience seems to show, that the processes of cognition already don’t correspond well to the processes we describe, it seems that the “complexity” may be nothing more than an artifact of these two systems of description.

As someone brought up Catholic he just exemplifies the other half of this meme all the time

What’s ironic is that Bret Stephens, whatever he tells himself, earned little of the success he has. Bret is a poster child for how the most pervasive brand of affirmative action in U.S. discourse is quota hiring for middle-wit conservatives.

It’s actually not, though it will usually claim that it is not a physician.