Doesn't sound like that in the slightest. The article is about human intent. No matter how good an LLM, it cannot convey the intent of the human without literally reading the humans mind.

I believe this is wrong. I am certain that LLMs can - even now - produce texts that humsn readers will interpret as having true intent. It is not some magical quality that only humans may put into words.

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.

Interpret as having intent and having intent are not the same. If someone else writes something for me (human or AI) they are not going to use the exact words that I would have used. If I judiciously correct everything they type out for me so that it correctly expresses what I want to say, then sure, it has my intent, but that's not how people are using LLMs. They are lazily scanning its output at best.

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.

That's not what I'm saying.

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.

> 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.)

No, what will happen is that time wasted believing in magical LLMs, instead of developing technical and interpersonal skills will prove unproductive longterm. Like most goldrush claims not panning out, it will be followed by broad amorality among the newly destitute.

Read a book.

Unproductive for the person perhaps, but not for the development of technology. But I do agree in general that using AI is not a great strategy for human beings. Read a book indeed.

OK, humans have intrinsic worth, sure. But why then do you mourn when a computer takes over a job that a human used to do? The human still has her same intrinsic worth as before. Your worth ain't defined by your job.

Computers can do a lot of human jobs. But something I believe is fundamental to the human experience is the connection with other humans. Using an LLM or similar technology as a means to circumvent or shirk such connection is reprehensible. Using a computer to do another job is fine.

We long replaced live musicians with machines. Do you want to rail against that one, too? What could be more intimate and connecting than music?

> they are getting better all the time.

In the very same way as a deal with Darth Vader, I presume.

I doubt that. Also from the article: "And no human is so worthless as to be replaceable with a machine."

Eh, 'computer' used to be a job description, too. Are you mourning the replacement?

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.