Reading between the lines of the OP, the author seems to think that the future of LLMs will be determined by debate and that he can win that debate by choosing the framing of the debate.

The whole meat of his article is about this debate technique, ostensibly saying that's what the other guys are doing, but really he's only described what he himself is doing.

▲

charles_f 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't read that. I understood it as the fact that tech companies are currently framing the narrative as "inevitable", and that you should ask yourself the other questions, such as do I want it

	▲	lupusreal 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The question of whether any individual wants it ultimately won't matter. Now that the technology exists and has found traction, it continuing to exist and have traction until eventually being superseded by something even more useful is inevitable. The author seems to think that the existence of the technology can be decided by debate to sway people one way or the other, but that's not how it works. Real life doesn't work like a debate club. The people who are saying that the technology is inevitable aren't trying to do a debate persuasion thing to make it inevitable, that's just the way the author wants to see it because that framing makes it negotiable. But there's no negotiating with the course of technological development.