@nico The point here is about the attitude towards the category, rather than about any specific applications
@nico No, it does not remotely 'break my conclusion'. The technology was not created for VLC, and so it is irrelevant to my point.
@nico And the same holds here as what I said in my initial post: if you choose to focus on a handful of nominally legitimate uses, instead of the (intentional!) systemic dangers and harms perpetuated by the technology as a category, then you are not having a legitimate discussion - you are just looking for an excuse not to have to take a real position on the matter.
@nico And no part of my original post was about laws.
I really have no interest in chasing goalposts. If you're not going to engage with the actual point I'm making, then please don't engage at all, because I certainly am not going to go off on a million irrelevant tangents.
I've spent the better part of a decade chasing these sorts of 'discussions' about other hyped technologies and none of them have *ever* resulted in any kind of useful outcome. I do not intend to waste any more time on this.
@nico In the current situation, there is exactly *one* valid discussion to have about LLMs: and that is one that recognizes that it is a fundamentally exploitative technology (not in the least due to its training data demands that are impossible to meet ethically), and where the discussion revolves around how to most effectively remove it from society.
Any other kind of discussion - and that *especially* includes "devil's advocate" type arguments - only serves one purpose, and that's to provide cover to the fascists running the show. And I will not engage in that. Its exploitative nature is not up for debate.