Chomsky’s early research at MIT was funded by the US military
as it revolved around providing commands to computers using natural language.
Being anti-militarist, especially anti-Vietnam war, he thought of resigning
from MIT but, having been promoted, he stayed on while making it clear that he
was against US foreign policy in many parts of the world. Chris Knight, a
professor at University College London, summarizes this: “Had he resigned in
disgust in the mid-1960s, when he was thinking of doing so, he might never have
gained the platform he needed to signal his dissidence across the world. There
are times when all of us have to make compromises, some more costly than others.”
Knight authored the book, published in 2018, entitled Decoding Chomsky:
Science and Revolutionary Politics.
More recently, Chomsky has commented on the language models used in artificial intelligence, referring to their applications as “sophisticated,
high-tech plagiarism” and “a threatening, dangerous development” (See this 2023
interview: “Noam Chomsky on Artificial
Intelligence” ). The better it gets, the worse it gets, Chomsky comments in
this other interview, referring to how plagiarism affects educational policies
(“Noam Chomsky on Artificial
Intelligence, Language and Cognition”). For example, some teachers have
gone back to requiring handwritten essays; others have had to re-devise essay
projects to ensure individual student effort. The plagiarism involved is, in his opinion, an impediment. Instead of students thinking for
themselves on a topic, AI can do the thinking for them, which in Chomsky’s view
defeats the purpose of a proper education. In fact, he refers to ChatGPT as "a toy used to mislead people", and "a game you can play with".
Finally, in an interview published in Common Dreams in
May 2023, Chomsky fears that AI cannot be controlled: “I can easily sympathize
with efforts to try to control the threats posed by advanced technology,
including this case. I am, however, skeptical about the possibility of doing
so. I suspect that the genie is out of the bottle. Malicious
actors–institutional or individual–can probably find ways to evade safeguards.
Such suspicions are of course no reason not to try, and to exercise vigilance.”