I think you’re arguing against something the author didn’t actually say. You seem to be claiming that this is a binary, either we will or won’t use llms, but t

I think you’re arguing against something the author didn’t actually say. You seem to be claiming that this is a binary, either we will or won’t use llms, but the author is mostly talking about risk mitigation. By analogy it seems like you’re saying the author is fundamentally against the development of the motor car because they’ve pointed out that some have exploded whereas before, we had horses which didn’t explode, and maybe we should work on making them explode less before we fire up the glue factories.