I've been reflecting on Generative AI in the context of broader sociological and cultural theories. This article is reminding me of these things and I'm curious what other think.

#1: George Soros' concept of reflexivity, where human biases begin informing, distorting, and supporting asset prices not because of their underlying fundamentals, but because of the human biases that have contributed to their prior appreciation. As per the essay being cited, if you are a CEO committing to AI as a strategy, you will also commit resources to double down on the technology. Your own identity becomes tied to it, whether you realize it or not, and you'll keep pushing for it and maybe even ignore facts that challenge the success of your investment.

#2: Marshall McLuhan (of "The Medium is the Message" fame) argues that we need to understand communication and entertainment technologies in terms of the structure they impose on us. While social media is seen as a societal ill by many, its original idea of connecting people is fundamentally, well, social... GenAI is very much a non-social (i.e., you experience it on your own) convenience technology. It gives you answers, it writes code, and it implies an authoritative perspective that is always available to you, as an imperfect human. What will this mean for our own identities as human beings?

I am very much a supporter of foundation models, LLMs, AI, etc. but can't help and think about some of the ideas above. Curious what others think.

I’m curious what makes you a supporter, as you say? Supporting the companies that make them or the developers themselves pushing the technology forward or the impacts of the proliferation of the LLMs’ usage or something else?