Is it useless or not? If it's vapourware, why would you care if the other side uses it? If the far right is using it successfully, then by definition it is not vapourware, right?
In a charitable reading I think the author was meaning something along the lines of "fails to be as useful as made to sound on things I think are worth valuing but very useful for things I think are slop" but chose a different meaning term by mistake.
LLMs have some very important downsides, and I fully agree that they are dangerous, but we should dispel the notion that they don't have positive use cases. That leaves the benefits on the table, while the bad actors will continue with their destruction anyways.
Anyway, my original point was indeed just about the semantics of the word "vapourware", which if I'm interpreting the author correctly, would be better replaced with "malware" (not that I agree with such a stance).
Because I’m among those being tormented!
My point is: you can't say LLMs are a dangerous tool and call them vapourware at the same time. It's a contradiction in terms.