The glib response here would be to say that no technology is ever inevitable and that everything is contingent. This has the advantages of being technically true and sounding wise, but unfortunately technologies very much exist that a reasonable person might well label that way. Firearms are a good example of the latter case: once they've been developed, you quite quickly hit the situation where if you want to maintain your independence and safety in a society, you have to either use one or have one used on your behalf: no other options really work.
I think TFA’s argument completely ignores the elephant in the room which is the economic driver behind this technology. And without addressing that, the whole argument becomes divorced from the material reality we inhabit.
The article makes the following statement:
If, however, we can neutralise the LLM threat somehow (perhaps by some combination of regulation, economics and social opprobrium), there is considerable hope.
Yet, here’s what empirical research has to say on the subject:
I think TFA’s argument completely ignores the elephant in the room which is the economic driver behind this technology. And without addressing that, the whole argument becomes divorced from the material reality we inhabit.
The article makes the following statement:
Yet, here’s what empirical research has to say on the subject:
score 1 · canonical