So this looks like a reasonable-on-paper critique of AI models that ended up costing dearly. One side question I haven't seen much (intelligent) discussion of:

So this looks like a reasonable-on-paper critique of AI models that ended up costing dearly. One side question I haven't seen much (intelligent) discussion of: to what extent is the intensity of AI critiques disingenuous in origin? Unfortunately, disingenuity discussions become instantly meaningless when they devolve into politics. Better to just assume that all politicians are disingenuous in everything and move on. I would say there's a category of unpardonable voices, such as competition-suppressing established companies (and wishful ones like musk.ai) and dick-tators targeting AI as a proxy for Western economies. However, I'd pardon anxious content creators, the same way I'd pardon Lyft drivers critiquing self-driving cars (and cab drivers critiquing Lyft 10 years ago.) The Goldilocks region is elusive. For example, it's unclear if SD3's failures are actually due to NSFW filtering. I suppose the disingenuity test could be based on the speaker's technical credentials, but that would probably dismiss too much speech.