It could also be that, so often, the claims of what LLMs are achieve are so, so overstated that people feel the need to take it down a notch.

I think lofty claims ultimately hurt the perception of AI. If I wanted to believe AI was going nowhere, I would listen to people like Sam Altman, who seem to believe in something more akin to a religion than a pragmatic approach. That, to me, does not breed confidence. Surely, if the product is good, it would not require evangelism or outright deceit? For example, claiming this implementation was 'clean room'. Words have meaning.

This feat was very impressive, no doubt. But with each exaggeration, people lose faith. They begin to wonder - what is true, and what is marketing? What is real, and what is a cheap attempt for companies to rake in whatever cold hard AI cash they can? Is this opportunistic, like viral pneumonia, or something we should really be looking at?

No.

While there are many comments which are in reaction to other comments:

Some people hype up LLMs without admitting any downsides. So, naturally, others get irritated with that.

Some people anti-hype LLMs without admitting any upsides. So, naturally, others get irritated with that.

I want people to write comments which are measured and reasonable.

This reply is argumentum ad personam. We could reverse it and say GenAI companies push this hype down our throats because of fear that they are burning cash with no moat but these kinds of discussions lead nowhere. It's better to focus on core arguments.