I have lost a few friends to llm sycophancy induced psychosis wherein they believe, and are encouraged to believe by the llm that, they are the sole individuals who have cracked "prompting", and, in fact, by so doing, have summoned the singularity for their sole benefit and under their sole control.
> A Prominent OpenAI Investor Appears to Be Suffering a ChatGPT-Related Mental Health Crisis, His Peers Say "I find it kind of disturbing even to watch it."
Just copy the arguments you see a lot into a spreadsheet and track them.
There are fewer than 10 that come up repeatedly it's not hard to do.
Ones I see on HN frequently are the "slop" critique, the claim that AI produces inferior content, and the claim that customers hate it and it's being forced on them. These all go back at least to the luddite movement and have been used in every anti-tech movement I've looked into. I'm sure you're capable of tracking the other talking points.
There are other ones that don't go back to the luddites but which are nonsensical, like the critique that LLMs are statistical.
I mean, what's political about having former NSA heads on your "exciting technology" board?
Or what's political about lining up together as the front row at the despot in chief's inauguration?
And what's so political about lobbying to and sequestering large amounts of public funds for your personal manufactured consent machine?
These things are literally software that runs on technology developed in the last 50 years, but by your clearly apolitical, unbiased, absolutely thoughtful, well reasoned, fully researched, insight is in fact "the most exciting technology in the last 50 years".
I said clearly and explicitly in my comment that I am happy to read thoughtful anti-AI material. That you disregarded this to write your comment says more about your ability to "form better opinions" than mine.
