I think mostly he just dgaf. Let me say here FUCK big tech, I am strongly anti ai in the social/political sense, and ill never use the chatbot trash, but i have to say in OSS where we can all review the code freely i dont see nearly the same risk that the closed source ecosystem suffers from.

@[email protected] I use llm's to find stuff or solutions for items where I am able to verify the output immediately (or with minimal effort). Example: last week I had a problem with my network interface. I prompted a (locally running) llm for the 'nmcli' commands which I hadn't used for years because I don't work as a sysadmin. The output was usable and saved me quite some 'manual-reading time'. I was able to verify the output because my internet connection was working again :-)It is my opinion that you should limit the scope of llm's there. If you start to blindly accept the output of llm's (which happened on a big scale with the php2shell cve this week, for example) you're just using the wrong tool for the job. Accepting the output of an llm without verification is only acceptable if an incorrect output is acceptable.The big problem with llm's is how you can abuse this technology. From a sociological point of view, it is the 'best tool ever for the (flaws in) meritocracy': it is a perfect tool to cheat your way up to a higher social class. And this is, in my opinion, the real problem. As long as llm's help people reach a better life standard by generating fake art/articles/cv's/programs/solutions to math problems/science it will be abused on the current massive scale. I have not found a solution for this problem, but I believe we should not discuss if 'ai' is good or bad ('ai' is just a subset of 'programs'. Some are useful, some are less useful) but ask 'where is, for example, an llm useful?' and learn each other to strictly limit the scope. To make it more clear what the scope of an llm is, I would suggest to remove the word 'intelligence' because an llm has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever (but it is a very good marketing buzzword because a user can feel himself implicitly intelligent by using this technology). The scientists who make the great podcast 'mystery ai-hype 3000' published a nice attempt: https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/. They replaced the word 'artificial intelligence' with 'probabilistic automation'. This sounds technically much more accurate, but obviously, any marketing team would rate this 0/10 :-D