Note: An LLM was not used in writing this microblog entry.
This entry is part of a microblog series called LLMs
A recently recurring thought is that many people criticise LLMs/“AI” on the wrong terms. I may be accidentally coming back to McLuhan, arguing that people should be looking at the medium and not the message, but I see arguments like “LLMs aren’t good at X”, or “good but not human level good”, etc. at e.g. writing code or reasoning. There’s usually an anecdote involved.
The questions should, in my view, assume that LLMs will attain fully realised potential, after presumably a protracted boom/bust iteration, and then ask whether and how that would affect how we enjoy life and conduct business.