Sounds like the author is complaining that LLMs aren't good enough yet?
I agree with that, but they are getting better all the time.
I agree with that, but they are getting better all the time.
The fact that texts by LLMs cannot be the result of true intent is another question. When reading a text, we are only guessing at its intent.
A friend said about AI-generated music: "AI can never be creative so the music will never be creative". I think that is a mistake. Like intent, creativity is not something intrinsic in the text/music, but a part of the consumers interpretation.
Music and creativity is an entirely separate matter. I don't think LLMs can be truly creative because they're just mixing existing ideas from their training set. Which is also what humans do 99% of the time, but I like to believe that once in awhile humans have a truly original idea. This one is a bit harder to prove though.
Music is almost entirely unoriginal though. It's just sex, drugs, love, gangster BS. Basic primitive human stuff. AI should have no problem with that.
My argument is that using a machine to replace your thinking, your voice, or your relationships is a very bad thing. Humans have intrinsic worth—machines do not.
I agree with that, and the only logical path if we are to preserve this principle is to eradicate AI, and not try and control it. There is no way to control it (think prisoner's dilemma, greedy individuals, etc.)
Read a book.
In the very same way as a deal with Darth Vader, I presume.
In any case, we are not literally replacing humans. We just shuffle jobs around: when a machine does a job that a human used to do, the human isn't replaced; the human is still there and could do something else with their life.