[amval]

I fully agree with the sentiment, but I am bit... confused? with the section that raises possible concerns about the negatives of LLMs. In particular the "women" mention, without any ellaboration.

Am I missing something? It feels pretty lazy. Like an enumeration of things we are supposed to care about, rather than an effort to build a solid argumentation against Sam Altman's fundraising effort.

And I have other issues with how these potential problems are framed, as if something that happens kind of organically and not a symptom of an increasingly plutocratic system. But admittedly maybe that's me being uncharitable to the author.

[brap]

I think he means AI-generated porn, e.g. the Taylor Swift case. I still think it's a silly argument against AI.

[amval]

I thought he maybe meant that, but since LLMs were explicitly mentioned I wasn't sure if image generation was part of this rant.

I don't know, I don't really object to the arguments themselves, just how poorly written this piece was.

[yowzadave]

It’s not really even an article—just a few-hundred-words snippet on the guy’s substack. I suspect it was posted to HN because of the context of the back-and-forth with Altman, rather than for its merits as an essay.

[rutierut]

Yes that whole section is extremely off:

> How do we know that $7 trillion invested into LLMs and their infrastructure would not simply exacerbate those costs, grinding down content creators, women, and the environment, undermining democracy, destroying jobs, etc?

“Destroying jobs” is pretty much a _good_ thing. I think we’re all pretty happy we don’t need dedicated people anymore for a lot of tedious tasks that we take for granted these days (washing clothes etc)

[zx8080]

> “Destroying jobs” is pretty much a _good_ thing.

It's not destroying only jobs, it's destroying those people's probably the sole profit source, with their families, health, lives.

Calling it a "good thing" is basically calling for a human genocide.