I don't think it's quite as bad, but I'm imagining someone in the 1950s going: "People just have to use methamphetamines responsibly in their work, and then we'll see the massive benefits as widespread adoption unlocks the potential of the human mind."

In other words, a positive outcome with thing X is possible but there are also big behavioral and cybernetic pitfalls, ones which are suspiciously persistent.

▲

lanstin 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean I use coffee quite a lot to prop up my software career. I don’t really find purity to be useful for anything except to answer questions like “should I steal this money now that I am alone” or “should I backstab this friend who pissed me off today.”

	▲	Terr_ 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> questions like “should I steal this money now that I am alone” or “should I backstab this friend who pissed me off today.” Ah, yes, a very BOFH approach [0] to workplace quandaries. > I mean I use coffee quite a lot Perhaps, but I don't think either of us would agree with the claim: "The way we integrated caffeine for productivity offers a useful and practical model for integrating meth for productivity." There's an extremely detectable difference in the feedback loops that form between the tool and the people using it. There's something which remains unsolved ~90 years on. If we assume for the sake of argument that coffee is "good" and "productive", then that leads us to the question: Are these LLM systems going to be more like coffee, or more like meth? [0] https://www.theregister.com/bofh