Also the Paul one sounds like he’s saying this in a job interview (“my main weakness is that I’m just too religious”)

“Feel asleep while praying”- every Orthodox person

Link to the statement

adw.org/news/joint-s...

Thank for this!

Very true; by the same token you can’t dismiss mass professional opinion without risking anti-vaxx logic. The debate needs to be on the actual impacts, and bc humanities faculty’s entire profession is reading, interpreting, producing text about human culture, we’re well poised to judge those impacts

Another way to put all this is: the conversation you and I are having now is quite literally infinitely more valuable than anything I input into an LLM.

….they are based on the presupposition that those methods can be artificially duplicated. So we’re left with at best a weak imitation, and at worst a delusion (which is why people actually can experience the latter when using them).

Indeed it might! I think my and others’ basic objection boils down to the assertion that speaking with a person, or reading text by a person, are the inherently superior methods of learning and creating language or text. And these methods can’t be artificially duplicated. The problem with LLMs is…

Also tbc all of objections are about humanities; I really can’t speak at all to mathematical, medical, etc. utility.

This all may be true; but it doesn’t address my main concern- the degradation of human skill and human interaction by relying on machines. And that interaction is the point of the humanities; text doesn’t exist for its own sake as an object of consumption- it exists to connect humans beings.

2)

My two recent reads on this fwiw:

1) www.theatlantic.com/technology/2...

…b/c the tech removes the user further from direct contact with human beings, it’s bound to degrade the skills associated with understanding and interpreting any human cultural product, which are the skills and sources of the humanities.