> Why are you pretending this is a binary outcome? You seem confused. My argument is not at all concerned with outcomes and is not binary in the slightest. My

> Why are you pretending this is a binary outcome? You seem confused. My argument is not at all concerned with outcomes and is not binary in the slightest. My point is clearly spelled out: > Comparing LLMs to random humans is the wrong methodology. I’m not saying LLMs are never useful or anything of the sort. What I am saying is that defending LLMs on the basis of “some random undefined human would do the same” is a poor argument which shows a deep misunderstanding of human collaboration.