Really spot-on, I agree this is the most important issue with inherent limitations of LLMs: not LLMs themselves and what they are supposed to do, but how a lot

Really spot-on, I agree this is the most important issue with inherent limitations of LLMs: not LLMs themselves and what they are supposed to do, but how a lot of people do not understand the limits of language and equating human knowledge and experience with language and "what has already been written". Tbh I find it quite disappointing from an intellectual/philosophical perspective that so many people think that the realm of human experience can be reduced to communicative language (and even more to "what has already been written in the internet") thus equating human creativity with LLMs' creativity. My fear is that people may not realise/care about this issue till it is too late (eg when journalism degrades to "the same article is written over and over"). The reason is that the bulk of "human creativity" is in fact reducible to what LLMs do: building a standard website, a lot of "creative writing" and art in general is to a big part not "innovation" that comes from experience (and in general from non-written-linguistic domains), at least in a lot of fields. I am afraid that because the bulk of work for a lot of fields is like that, especially exactly that kind of boring, repeatitive work that gives most of the money to survive and AI is better than humans at (ie cheaper), we may even risk having degradation on many fields that we may not even be able to notice.