It's ironic for you to say this considering that you're not actually engaging in conversation or internalizing any of the points people are trying to relay to you, but instead just spreading anger and resentment around the comment section at a bot-like rate.

In general, I've found that anti-LLM people are far more angry, vitriolic, unwilling to acknowledge or internalize the points of others — including factual ones (such as the fact that they are interpreting most of the studies they quote completely wrong, or that the water and energy issues they are so concerned with are not significant) and alternative moral concerns or beliefs (for instance, around copyright, or automation) — and spend all of their time repeating the exact same tropes about everyone who disagrees with them being addicted or fooled by persuasion techniques, as I thought terminating cliche to dismiss the beliefs and experiences of everyone else.

▲

thesz an hour ago | parent [-]

So I went to check whether LLM addiction is a thing, because that's was a pole around which the grandparent's comment revolves.

It appears that LLM addiction is real and it is in same room as we are: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/18/12/789

I would like to add that sugar consumption is a risk factor for many dependencies, including, but not limited to, opioids [1]. And LLM addiction can be seen as fallout of sugar overconsumption in general.

[1] https://news.uoguelph.ca/2017/10/sugar-in-the-diet-may-incre...

Yet, LLM addiction is being investigated in medical circles.

	▲	logicprog 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I definitely don't deny that LLM addiction exists, but attempting to paint literally everyone that uses LLMs and thinks they are useful, interesting, or effective as addicted or falling for confidence or persuasion tricks is what I take issue with.