That's a strawman argument. I'm pretty critical of LLMs and i don't use such tools. However, even in the strawman version, why dismiss the experiences of people suffering first hand from those tools?

I mean, to make a terribly bad analogy, i don't immediately discount the bad experiences of soldiers in regards to killing people, or of addicts in regards to drug abuse.

▲

andsoitis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> why dismiss the experiences of people suffering first hand from those tools?

Because if you’re paying voluntarily for a tool that you don’t need, you have agency to remove your “suffering” by canceling your subscription and not use it! So the “suffer” complaint in those instances can be dismissed.

	▲	selfhoster1312 31 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's like saying you just have to stop being a wage slave for a corporation and suddenly you're free.. but you still have to pay the bills. That's a fallacious argument. All people i know around me who use LLMs and have subscriptions are forced upon them by their employers. But even for "willing" users, questions of addiction come into play.
	▲	jackb4040 29 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Nobody lives on their own planet. There are countless systems that we all depend on that suck by design. No one would say you're not allowed to criticize American health insurance or social media just because you're forced to participate in them if you don't wanna go down like Ted Kaczynski. This is such a moving goalpost anyways. If someone is a prominent AI critic and doesn't regularly use the tools, that becomes the main line of attack. But the second they get a subscription ALL their criticism is cancelled a priori.

▲

user43928 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I specifically expressed doubt about the claim that the useful product would not sell because of negative sentiment.

Here I'm pointing out that often it seems the usefulness outweighs the negative sentiment as even many vocal critics seem to use the tool.

As for dismissing supposed first hand experiences of suffering, I see none here. The critics often argue on other's behalf.

▲

palmotea an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> However, even in the strawman version, why dismiss the experiences of people suffering first hand from those tools?

Because the people doing that dismissing are being dishonest. Their goal is to attack and discredit their enemy, period. Critical testimony from a user has some vague similarities to hypocrisy, so can be twisted for propaganda purposes and portrayed as hypocrisy.