←back to thread

LLM Inevitabilism

(tomrenner.com)
1616 points SwoopsFromAbove | 1 comments | 15 Jul 25 04:35 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
JimmaDaRustla ◴[15 Jul 25 13:50 UTC] No.44571157[source]▶
The author seems to imply that the "framing" of an argument is done so in bad faith in order to win an argument but only provides one-line quotes where there is no contextual argument.

This tactic by the author is a straw-man argument - he's framing the position of tech leaders and our acceptance of it as the reason AI exists, instead of being honest, which is that they were simply right in their predictions: AI was inevitable.

The IT industry is full of pride and arrogance. We deny the power of AI and LLMs. I think that's fair, I welcome the pushback. But the real word the IT crowd needs to learn is "denialism" - if you still don't see how LLMs is changing our entire industry, you haven't been paying attention.

Edit: Lots of denialists using false dichotomy arguments that my opinion is invalid because I'm not producing examples and proof. I guess I'll just leave this: https://tools.simonwillison.net/

replies(13): >>44571266 #>>44571325 #>>44571342 #>>44571439 #>>44571448 #>>44571473 #>>44571498 #>>44571731 #>>44571794 #>>44571923 #>>44572035 #>>44572307 #>>44572665 #
1. perching_aix ◴[15 Jul 25 14:56 UTC] No.44571794[source]▶
> The author seems to imply that the "framing" of an argument is done so in bad faith in order to win an argument (...) This tactic by the author is a straw-man argument

This is what I was expecting from the title, but not really what I found in the content in the end. Instead, to me it read to be more about argumentation and inevitibilism in general, than about LLMs specifically. From my perspective, to claim and ride it otherwise rings as mischaracterization.

... Which is also an acknowledgement I missed from the article. The use of inevitability as a framing device is just one of the many forms of loaded language, and of the encoding of shared assumptions without preestablishing that the other person actually shares them. Notice how I didn't say that you're mischaracterizing the article outright - we clearly read what was written differently. To assert my interpretation as correct by encoding it as framing would be pretty nasty. Sadly not uncommon though, and it's one of those things that if you try to actually control for, writing in a digestable way in general becomes very hard to impossible.