[Lyapunov_Lover]

Why would there be a falsifiable hypothesis in it? Do you think that's a criterion for something being a scientific paper or something? If it ain't Popper, it ain't proper?

LLMs dramatically lower the bar for generating semi-plausible bullshit and it's highly likely that this will cause problems in the not-so-distant future. This is already happening. Ask any teacher anywhere. Students are cheating like crazy, letting chatGPT write their essays and answer their assignments without actually engaging with the material they're supposed to grok. News sites are pumping out LLM-generated articles and the ease of doing so means they have an edge over those who demand scrutiny and expertise in their reporting—it's not unlikely that we're going to be drowning in this type of content.

LLMs aren't perfect. RLHF is far from perfect. Language models will keep making subtle and not-so-subtle mistakes and dealing with this aspect of them is going to be a real challenge.

Personally, I think everyone should learn how to use this new technology. Adapting to it is the only thing that makes sense. The paper in question raised valid concerns about the nature of (current) LLMs and I see no reason why it should age poorly.