Absolutely. They have dramatically worsened the world, with little to no net positive impact. Nearly every (if not all) positive impacts have an associated negative that that dwarfs it.
LLMs aren't going anywhere, but the world would be a better place if they hadn't been developed. Even if they had more positive impacts, those would not outweigh the massive environmental degradation they are causing or the massive disincentive they created against researching other, more useful forms of AI.
IMO LLMs have been a net negative on society, including my life. But I'm merely pointing out the stark contrast on this website, and that fact that we can choose to live differently.
I am not anti-AI, nor unhappy about how any current LLM works. I'm unhappy about how AI is used and abused to collective detriment. LLM scraper spam leading to increased centralization and wider impacting failures is just one example.
Your position is similar to saying that medical drugs have been a net negative on society, because some drugs have been used and abused to collective detriment (and other negative effects, such as doctors prescribing pills instead of suggesting lifestyle changes). Does it mean that we would be better off without any medical drugs?
My position is that the negatives outweigh the positives, and I don't appreciate your straw man response. It's clear your question is not genuine and you're here to be contrarian.
A solid secondary option is making LLM scraping for training opt-in, and/or compensating sites that were/are scraped for training data. Hell, maybe then you could not knock websites over incentivizing them to use Cloudflare in the first place.
But that means LLM researchers have to respect other people's IP which hasn't been high on their todo lists as yet.
bUt ThAT dOeSn'T sCaLe - not my fuckin problem chief. If you as an LLM developer are finding your IP banned or you as a web user are sick of doing "prove you're human" challenges, it isn't the website's fault. They're trying to control costs being arbitrarily put onto them by a disinterested 3rd party who feels entitled to their content, which it costs them money to deliver. Blame the asshole scraping sites left and right.
Edit: and you wouldn't even need to go THAT far. I scrape a whole bunch of sites for some tools I built and a homemade news aggregator. My IP has never been flagged because I keep the number of requests down wherever possible, and rate-limit them so it's more in line with human like browsing. Like so much of this could be solved with basic fucking courtesy.
Not to speak for the other poster, but... That's not a good-faith question.
Most of the problems on the internet in 2025 aren't because of one particular technology. They're because the modern web was based on gentleman's agreements and handshakes, and since those things have now gotten in the way of exponential profit increases on behalf of a few Stanford dropouts, they're being ignored writ large.
CF being down wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal if their service wasn't one of the main ways to protect against LLM crawlers that blatantly ignore robots.txt and other long-established means to control automated extraction of web content. But, well, it is one of the main ways.
Would it be one of the main ways to protect against LLM web scraping if we investigated one of the LLM startups for what is arguably a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, arrested their C-suite, and sent each member to a medium-security federal prison (I don't know, maybe Leavenworth?) for multiple years after a fair trial?
I'm Sure there will be an investigation... By the SEC when the bubble pops and takes the S&P with it. No prison though, probably jobs at the next ponzi scheme
b) Do you have a citation for that? my understanding is that while some weights can go to zero and effectively be removed, no (actually used in prod) network architecture or training method allows arbitrary connections.
Mainly because global video data corpus is > 100k larger than global text corpus, so you will need to train much larger models for much longer (than current LLMs).
The numbers are alarming, but I feel like seeing more details would be really helpful. For example MIT and CalTech both have numbers that indicate something like 7x more non-faculty staff than faculty. That sounds crazy, but is it? I'd love to know more detail about the distribution of people to those non-faculty roles.
I feel like this is an example where we can get almost everyone behind reducing costs at college by showing better data. If you were to show, for example, that 7x is almost all carbon emissions admins then I think we'd see a ton of support to cut these positions. But it may also be the case that people see the admin responsibilities and say, "Oh... OK, that makes sense". The problem is -- with this data, I have no idea.
There's some examples in the first link, with the implication they're representative (unknown whether they are, yet, "detail about the distribution")
> Purdue administrator: a “$172,000 per year associate vice provost had been hired to oversee the work of committees charged with considering a change in the academic calendar” who defended their role to a Bloomberg reporter by stating “‘[my] job is to make sure these seven or eight committees are aware of what’s going on in the other committees.’”
> serve primarily as liaisons between bureaucratic arms. “Health Promotion Specialist”, “Student Success Manager,” and “Senior Coordinator, Student Accountability” are all positions currently available on higheredjobs.com. A Harvard Crimson article considered the university’s recent Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) “Task Force on Visual Culture and Signage”, a 24 member-strong committee including 9 administrators.
I have a suspicion that as an entity such as a University (or government, or business, etc) gets larger, its bureaucracy/administrations needs grow (at a much faster rate)
Both of those links (thanks for providing them) only talk about raw numbers, no real in depth analysis of whether the administrators are needed at those levels, or not, nor even how they classify someone as being an administrator.
I don't have any serious evidence, but the idea of "bloated administration" has been a meme for many years and I remember this humorous article describing it as a new chemical element floating around since around a decade ago: https://meyerweb.com/other/humor/administratium.html
Yeah - I often hear politically motivated speakers talk about "bloat" in various parts of organisations, but I've never (literally) seen anything beyond "numbers"
That's not really helpful, because, as I said to the other poster and have subsequently been down voted for it - that's not genuine analysis, we don't know anything about who is being described as "administration" nor do we know why they're there in the first place.
I know a current professor who has been in the same department for 15 years and the admin bloat thing is definitely real. Just tons of new people employed for who knows what. Maybe the numbers are out there maybe not (who is looking at them?) but it’s definitely not an imaginary thing or made up for political purposes.
It’s not feels when admin has grown massively in staff while other staff, faculty and students remain the same lol. It’s really not interesting talking to someone who actively and proudly places their head in the sand.
You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between an anecdote on feelings as opposed to anecdote on facts. That’s unfortunate but it’s not something I can help you with. So I will just leave you with your head in the sand.
Now you’re backing up to false claims lol. Seems to me you are clinging on to a hot take that you will do anything to defend. No point in a discussion with you.
Your false claim is that somehow I have my head in the sand for daring to point out that you are providing anecdotes which are feelings based (there are zero hard facts in your claim, no numbers, no examples, just "looks like more people")
The pointlessness of your claims is upsetting you, because you've been found out. I get it, you thought that you could get away with BS, but you got called out instead.
If you have hard facts, that are credible and verifiable, you can post them at any time.
You don't have those, that's why you resorted to insults.
I remembered incorrectly. They are getting "emergency declarations" support:
> Donald Trump called it "the largest AI infrastructure project in history", and he indicated that he would use emergency declarations to expedite the project's development, particularly regarding energy infrastructure.
So it might not be strictly a subsidy, but it surely is taxpayer-support.
He didn't. First, he gave away a good chunk to early employees who didn't have stock when the IPO happened. Then, he liquidated his Apple in the mid-1980s.
He certainly could have made billions if he had been greedy (not given any away) and lazy (just lived off the dividends and never sold) and never done another thing in his life - more billions than Bezos.
So it costs $85k to launch such cubesat. Too expensive for almost all of us. But if the cost comes down to say $5k, I'd probably be interested in this as a hobby project.
The question is how to deal with all of the space debris. It seems like they should factor in the total cost (retrieving anything that goes up) and not only the cost to launch it.
Sattelites in LEO without the ability to boost their orbits back up will fall out of orbit in a few years due to natural atmospheric resistance. Exactly how long it takes depends on the shape and mass of the sattelite. It's of very very low Kessler syndrome risk.
It all falls back down eventually. Anything too small will stay up for some time, but even the half-billion copper needles put in space by the US have almost all come down. Wikipedia says there are <50 clumps of needles left.
Cubesats in most cases must have documented materials that are burnt up in the atmosphere upon reentry, for this exact reason. They don't stay up there forever.
FCC (or FAA, can't remember, that's systems engineering's job) mandates that all satellites, including cubesats, be able to deorbit within 5 years of the end of their mission with some confidence rate (90%, iirc).
Almost all cubesats are launched at about a 550km x 550km orbit or lower circular orbit. Cubesats (most satellites, in fact) will deorbit naturally within a few years (almost definitely <= 5Y) at that altitude due to orbit decay, mostly from drag.
Now, some cubesats will have onboard propulsion, which they'll use to extend their mission by burning back into higher orbits, allowing them to still naturally decay at the end of their mission. Indeed, they can even use remaining propellant to speed their orbit's decay.
reply