Read the text, and analyse the assertives that are introduced.

The False Promise of ChatGPT (by Noam Chomsky)

Today our supposedly revolutionary advancements in artificial intelligence are indeed cause for both concern and optimism. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard and Microsoft’s Sydney are marvels of machine learning. Roughly speaking, they take huge amounts of data, search for patterns in it and become increasingly proficient at generating statistically probable outputs – such as seemingly humanlike language and thought. These programs have been hailed as the first glimmers on the horizon of artificial general intelligence – that long-prophesied moment when mechanical minds surpass human brains not only quantitatively in terms of processing speed and memory size but also qualitatively in terms of intellectual insight, artistic creativity and every other distinctively human faculty. That day may come, but its dawn is not yet breaking, contrary to what can be read in hyperbolic headlines and reckoned by injudicious investments. However useful these programs may be in some narrow domains, they can be helpful in computer programming, for example, or in suggesting rhymes for light verse, we know from the science of linguistics and the philosophy of knowledge that they differ profoundly from how humans reason and use language. The human mind is not, like ChatGPT and its ilk, a lumbering statistical engine for pattern matching, gorging on hundreds of terabytes of data and extrapolating the most likely conversational response or most probable answer to a scientific question. On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient system that operates with small amounts of information; it seeks not to infer brute correlations among data points but to create explanations. Of course, any human-style explanation is not necessarily correct; we are fallible. But this is part of what it means to think: to be right, it must be possible to be wrong. Intelligence consists not only of creative conjectures but also of creative criticism, possible explanations and error correction, a process that gradually limits what possibilities can be rationally considered. Because these programs cannot explain the rules of English syntax, for example, they may well predict, incorrectly, that “John is too stubborn to talk to” means that “John is so stubborn that he will not talk to someone or other” rather than that “he is too stubborn to be reasoned with”. True intelligence is also capable of moral thinking. This means constraining the otherwise limitless creativity of our minds with a set of ethical principles that determines what ought and ought not to be (and of course subjecting those principles themselves to creative criticism). ChatGPT in its plethora was crudely restricted by its programmers from contributing anything novel to controversial issues as it sacrificed creativity for a kind of amorality: for all the seemingly sophisticated thought and language, the moral indifference born of unintelligence, exhibiting the banality of evil for its plagiarism, apathy and obviation. It summarizes the standard arguments in the literature by a kind of super-autocomplete, refuses to take a stand on anything, pleads not merely ignorance but lack of intelligence and ultimately offers a “just following orders” defense, shifting responsibility to its creators. In short, ChatGPT and its brethren are constitutionally unable to balance creativity with constraint. They either overgenerate (producing both truths and falsehoods, endorsing ethical and unethical decisions alike) or undergenerate (exhibiting noncommitment to any decisions and indifference to consequences). Given the amorality, faux science and linguistic incompetence of these systems, we can only laugh or cry at their popularity.

(The New York Times – March 8, 2023. Opinion-Guest essay. Adapted.)

I. Intelligence incrementally narrows down the prospects which might be sensibly pondered.

II. ChatGPT information is featured by amount patterns along with dodging divisive argument.

III. Human brains yield critical thought on the cornerstone of constraining ethical line tenets.

There is accuracy in what is stated in