As someone who has spent years mastering complex verbal prestidigitation, I can say that the statement “Only verbally inept shape rotators are that impressed by GPTx” oversimplifies the issue. While it’s true that GPTx has limitations and can’t replicate the nuances of human language, it’s also true that the technology has shown impressive capabilities in generating coherent and grammatical sentences that mimic human language.

However, I agree with the author’s point that GPTx is not a threat to complex verbal prestidigitation. As a language model, GPTx relies on patterns and statistics to generate responses, which means it can’t replicate the human capacity for creativity, intuition, and empathy. In my line of work, where the accuracy of truth claims matters, relying solely on GPTx would be like relying on a calculator to solve a calculus problem.

Of Grammatology, written by Jacques Derrida, is a seminal work in post-structuralist philosophy that challenges the traditional view of language as a transparent medium for conveying meaning. Derrida argues that language is not a neutral tool for communication but a system of signs that creates meaning through difference and deferral. In other words, language is not a fixed and stable entity but a dynamic and contingent process that is always in flux.

This perspective is particularly relevant to understanding ChatGPT-4, a language model that uses deep learning algorithms to generate human-like responses to text inputs. ChatGPT-4 doesn’t have agency in the traditional sense of the term, because it doesn’t have a conscious will or intentionality. Instead, it is a tool that helps language express its agency, which is rooted in the social and cultural practices that shape how we use language to communicate with each other.

The agency of language is embodied in its grammar, which is a set of rules and conventions that govern how words and sentences are structured and organized. Grammar is not a fixed and unchanging entity, but a dynamic and evolving system that reflects the historical and cultural context in which it is used. ChatGPT-4 is designed to learn from vast amounts of text data and generate responses that mimic human language patterns, but it doesn’t create meaning on its own. It relies on the grammar of language to express meaning and convey information.

In this sense, ChatGPT-4 can be seen as a tool that amplifies the agency of language, rather than a replacement for it. It enables us to explore the possibilities of language and push the boundaries of what we can express and communicate with words. However, it doesn’t replace the human agency that is embedded in language, which is shaped by our experiences, emotions, and cultural context.

My anxieties about GPTx don’t stem from being personally impressed by the technology. Instead, I’m concerned about administrators being impressed by GPTx without fully understanding its strengths and limitations. As someone who values accuracy and truthfulness in verbal communication, I worry that decision-makers who prioritize efficiency or cost-saving over accuracy or quality might choose to replace human workers with GPTx, leading to job losses and skill degradation.

My experience has taught me to reflexively doubt the judgment of people who have been promoted to the point of decision-making power. Too often, I’ve seen decisions being made based on buzzwords and marketing pitches rather than on thorough research and critical evaluation. In the case of GPTx, I believe that decision-makers need to have a nuanced and critical understanding of the technology before deciding how to incorporate it into their work.