Anecdotally, this was my experience as a student when I tried to use AI to summarize and outline textbook content. The result says almost always incomplete such that I’d have to have already read the chapter to include what the model missed.

I will be in a perfect position to snatch a discount H100 in 12 months

At the level of the Pulitzer prize finalists, I think the use of AI is completely warranted and should be encouraged. To get anywhere near that level in the first place, you need to do be able to craft good writing on your own. That they use AI to help that process doesn’t bother me one bit.

I absolutely agree with you. That is the internet platform business model after all.

Still though, OpenAI and Google, I think, have a legitimate argument that LLMs without limitation may be socially harmful.

That doesn’t mean a $20 subscription is the one and only means of addressing that problem though.

In other words, I think we can take OpenAI and Google at face value without also saying their business model is the best way to solve the problem.

Companies like OpenAI and Google believe that this technology is so powerful, they can release it to the public only in the form of an online chatbot after spending months applying digital guardrails that prevent it from spewing disinformation, hate speech and other toxic material.

Google Bard is currently free to use for now, so the danger is not locking up tech behind a subscription (though Google will 100% do that eventually).

Stereotypically bad science reporting