The framing has been rather problematic. I find these differences in premises are lurking below the conversations: - Some believe LLMs will be a winner-take-a

The framing has been rather problematic. I find these differences in premises are lurking below the conversations: - Some believe LLMs will be a winner-take-all market and reinforce divergences in economic and political power. - Some believe LLMs have no path of evolution and have therefore already plateaued and too low to be sustainable with these investments in compute, which would imply it's a flash in the pan that will collapse. - Some believe LLMs will all be hosted forever, always living in remote services because the hardware requirements will always be massive. - Some believe LLMs will create new, worse kinds of harm without enough offsetting creation of new kinds of defense. - Some believe LLMs and AI will only ever give low-skilled people mid-skill results and therefore work against high-skill people by diluting mid-end value without creating new high-end value for them. We need to be more aware of how we are framing this conversation because not everyone agrees on these big premises. It very strongly affects the views that depend on them. When we don't talk about these points and just judge and reply based on whether the conclusion reinforces our premises, the conversation becomes more political. Confirmation bias is a thing. Individual interests are a thing. Some of the outcomes, like regulation and job disruption, depend on what we generally believe. People know this and so begin replying and voting according to their interests, to convince others to aid their cause without respect for the truth. This can be counter-productive to the individual if they are wrong about the premises and end up pushing an agenda that doesn't even actually benefit them. We can't tell people not to advance their chosen horse at every turn of a conversation, but those of us who actually care about the truth of the conversation can take some time to consider the foundations of the argument and remind ourselves to explore that and bring it to the surface.