Post

I wonder: could we as a society just run LLM-accellerated scientific programs for new battery/solar designs, CRISPR-like enzymes, cancer cures - the stuff where outcomes really matter - while also maintaining a humans-only sandbox for these people to experience the joys of the life of the mind in?

I genuinely do not think I am being uncharitable here, we let the amish get on with their lives in peace while not letting them set the pace for the rest of us, maybe that's the play here too

anyway I think this genuinely harms people because if you have an established career writing the same article over and over again you can afford lifestyle LARP but for early-career people? This is poison, this is making them less able to compete and establish themselves, all for her pop-sci brand

While a vendetta can be a part of the story, I think her reasons are more complex. However, I'm almost positive she is not engaging in good faith. All she talks about online is AI, plus she has a book and a podcast. At the same time, she seems to be tactical in who she engages and how.

It would be unfair to say that that’s where her vendetta comes from. It would not be unfair to note that LLMs completely outcompeted the academic project that she poured decades of her career into, and that this might have informed her position.

it would also not be unfair to note that her arguments are very bad, and that she has every reason to know that they’re very bad, but she uses them anyway.

I think I got a headache just trying to understand her twisted logic. But that last sentence? lmao??