It's true that many people have self-serving reasons for hating LLMs.

About 1 million Americans have lost their job this year, with AI being a cited by employers.

I am certainly going to try getting ChatGPT to read and understand legal contracts before going to speak to a lawyer. The more I know, the better questions I can ask. I use a privately staged LLM to posed medical questions. Better than running the gauntlet of Canada's broken medical system. Yes I read articles from NIH. LLMs aren't a replacement for expertise. But these are concrete examples where LLMs threaten jobs while making ordinary people's lives better.

Job losses are a real concern, and people are right to be worried/concerned, even if economic change is good in the long run.

I'm more concerned by the cruddy quality. Ask it questions about the existence of God, and ChatGPT will say it has no opinion, and is NOT agnostic. Mmm, sure thing. Something is true/not true/cannot be talked about, if powerful people will get angry over what ChatGPT will say about it. Apparently there's as many people employed to "manage the message" as there are building the underlying useful technology. I find this pathetic.

The technology is amazing. It is a game changer. It'll be exploited by scammers. It has huge problems. It'll take time for society to adjust.

"We need money for roads and schools" is sometimes about paying for generous entitlements to previous employees.

Use Linux and MacOS, and iOS heavily. Gotta say that Linux is essentially hassle free. Very very few random changes to KDE system panels. Some minor stability issues with updating KDE. That's about all.

Mac has gone down hill a long way from the high UI standards of the 1980s. Using the control panel has devolved into a linear search. Stuff seems randomly organized probably due to Conway's Law. The worst feature is that you cannot uninstall itunes. The very existence of noTunes (so you don't accidentally boot itunes by hitting the wrong button) is a telling indictment on Silicon Valley's corporate culture.

I've had some great baking recipes from LLMs. Fun asking it why you'd do things. Eg., "why would you chill the batter of a cake?" Of course, I never expected it to give me 100% accurate information, and know enough about baking to parse the information that it's giving me.

Planned economies would likewise happily replace people with machines, if they could. The set of modern planned economies is very short: North Korea.

State capitalism -- where the state controls the decisions, but the profit motive remains, includes: China, Laos, Cuba, Turkmenistan, Eritrea... there's not a single country there that give a flying fsck about human rights.

True. And it replaces the previous policy of forcing an organization to do the bidding of the administration. DEI was foisted on America through government rules and legal activism.

The perfect rhetorical fortress: you don’t have the correct identity to have an opinion. I’m not white. No matter, there’s something else wrong with my immutable characteristics. Too much butt hair? Cannot have an opinion. And let’s assume that I tick all the immutable characteristics to have an opinion on DEI. Well, I have internalized homophobia/white supremacy/misogyny you name it. The perfect rhetorical fortress. Hermetic.

The funny thing about this is that DEI was shoved down the throats of universities and corporate America by government rules! And now reversing those rules — or eliminating them — is someone a huge problem!

The funny thing about this is that the Supreme Court has consistently been narrowing the parameters of what constitutes legal race/sex based discrimination since the 1970s. And universities and activists have blithely been ignoring the law. Affirmative action was always meant to be a temporary measure to achieve a goal, not some perpetual group-based right. The later is the very antithesis of the legal foundation of the country.

That’s the sales pitch. I’m sure someone somewhere had their PR knocked back because they weren’t “cis-gendered white Christian male”. In a world of 8 billion people, it’s entirely plausible that it happened once. A pretty low bar for excusing bigotry against people who don’t think like you though.

Nah, it was a Freudian slip.

DEI is the racism of low expectations. Or the racial supremacy of certain morally compromised minority individuals.

You keep telling yourself that anti-DEI is merely racism. Psychological projection

There has been a long a successful campaign against racism and sexism, known as liberalism. Putting the rights of the individual ahead of collective rights. Liberalism is Martin Luther King. Tribal rights is Malcolm X. The former won the argument in the civil rights era. The later formed Black Studies departments at universities, and went on to reeducate the youth in the “tribal rights of X people”. I’ve left jobs because I’m perceived to be white (by those who don’t know better, as in, appreciate that part of the world I’m from by my facial structure), and that I’m a man. I’m a minority by the letter of the law, but fsck that sh*t. Go ahead with your “the only remedy to past disciminiation is discrimination in the present, and the only remedy to discrimination in the present is discrimination in the future”. That’s some midwit nonsense.

“Not even called for an interview” is utter nonsense. I get the point you’re making. Look up “advocacy research”.

It’s true that the Trump admin (Vance et al really) represents a pre-liberal “tribal rights” American nativist ideology, it is also true that that is precisely what DEI is pushing. Just putting different tribes ahead of others. The “melting pot” ideology come from a genuine commitment to liberalism as an ideal that we strive towards. That means liberty for *everyone*. No “group rights”. That’s what Thatcher meant when she said “there’s no society, just people and the government.” That was aspiration. Not true in practice. But an aspiration that we don’t have “laws for X people” and “laws for Y people”, which is precisely what DEI is pushing. (And Vance et al.) The tell is the successful campaign against means testing entitlement. You see, it’s racist to give people preferential treatment based on need (poverty etc.) No, we have to treat the Obama kids preferentially because of skin colour, irrespective of their actual privilege over, say, 99.9% of the rest of America.

”White people only”

Hardly. Whatever kernel of truth was there was obliterated by moral preening.