The utility of LLMs clearly exists (I'm building a product on this premise, so I'm not uninterested!)
But hype also exists. How closely they are matched is not yet clear.
But your comment seems to indicate that the "pro-tech" position is automatically the best. This is _not_ true, as cryptocurrency has already demonstrated.
Funny thing is you are actually the pro [corporate] tech one, not on the side of freedom. Furthermore nobody said anything about crypto - you are seriously grasping at straws. You have said nothing about the products on shelves (billions of dollars in the industry already) argument, only presented crypto as an argument which has nothing to do with the conversation.
> This is _not_ true, as cryptocurrency has already demonstrated.
His whole argument against AI is basically the anti-tech stance: "Well crypto failed that means AI will too" It's coming from a place of disdain for technology. That's your typical Hacker News commenter. This site is like Fox News in 2008 - some of the dumbest people alive
What I am against is the “if it’s tech it’s good” mindset that seems to have infected far too many. I mention crypto because it’s the largest example of tech that is not good for the world.
You’re certainly able to sus out everything about my worldview, knowledge level and intentions from my one-sentence comment.
The only thing that LLMs are at risk of subverting is the livelihood of millions of people. AI is a capital intensifier, so the rich will get richer as it sees more uptake.
About copyright - yeah, I’m quite concerned for my friends who are writers and artists.
> You'll get left behind with these takes, it's not smart. If you don't care about advancing technology or society then have fun being a luddite, but you're on the wrong side of history.
