back

by lproven·12h ago·view on hn ↗
> This is the real problem with many of the anti LLM folks

(BTW, I am the OP: I posted this, but I didn't write the article.)

No, the real problem here is that you do not understand the anti-LLM arguments.

I won't touch LLMs for anything except translation. But my anti-LLM stance is nothing whatsoever to do with whether they work or not (and that is even without the extreme torturing of the word "work" that the advocates do.)

My objection is based on the terrible crimes committed in building them (from theft), training them (at catastrophic ecological cost), in running them (ditto), in the effects on their individual users (cumulative brain damage), on their corporate users (economic destruction), and so on.

If they work is incidental. The believers like what LLMs do. For me, by my definitions, LLMs do not work. They extrude content that I never ever want to see, or read, or here, or want to execute. But for the botlickers, that is enough: they extrude a product. The botlickers want product.

I don't care. I don't want the product, but more to the point, I want the machines making the product not to exist... and if the price of that is all the people using the machines to never work again, and all the companies using them to go bankrupt, I would be absolutely delighted.

1 comments
You are a different anti-LLM person than the article's author. You aren't one of the "many" anti-LLM folks that they are referring to, whereas the author is one of them. Your reasons are quite distinct from the several of the author's reasons.