Ech

The technical term was created to promote the misunderstanding that LLMs “think”. The “experts” want people to think LLMs are far more advanced than they actually are. You can add as many tokens to your context as you want - every model is still, fundamentally, a text generator. Humanizing it more than that is naive or deceptive, depending on how much money you have riding on the bubble.

Leapfrogged? It never left. LLMs were made to make shit up.

Except it’s not libel. It’s a one time string of text generated exclusively for him. Literally no one would have known what it said if the guy didn’t get the exact thing he wants “deleted” published online for everyone to see. Now it’ll be linked to his name forever, but the llm didn’t do that.

“All of them? All of them. All of them is good.”

It’s pretty telling to focus on the dev’s right to reject inclusivity while simultaneously rejecting and deriding everyone else’s right to judge them for that.

And if it was such a useless change, why didn’t the dev reject it for that instead of saying it was “political”? He’s the one that declared the word itself, not the utility of the change, was the problem. Calling everyone else “trolls” for pointing that out is just disingenuous.

They refused to use the right pronoun. One is a mistake. The other is a choice.

Perhaps this is what you mean, but it’s even worse than just unpaid hours for current employees. His implicit goal is to generate a slave-class of people (which is what actual AI would be) that he can make more of or delete at his whim, and eliminate to livelihoods of any current employees (besides him and other execs, of course).