No - I picked it precisely because it's a machine that improved efficiencies but undeniably had negative impacts as well.

I think that's my whole point - I'm not saying that the person I initially responded to is incorrect in not liking the impacts AI might have. I think it's a perfectly reasonable take to be concerned about how AI might impact you, and to express that, along with negative sentiments.

I'm saying that the argument they are currently making

> "Maybe the discourse sucks because the reality of it sucks?"

and even the slightly better

> "Okay calling a search engine and retrieving a result has been possible for a while. Llm companies just slapped statistical response on top as the UI."

Is a guaranteed way to be ignored and dismissed because it's a low effort emotional response - not an actual argument.

Those technological advancements with Llms are low effort advancements. So you only get low effort responses.

Do you understand why maybe no one’s wowed by browser automation/automated web search? Can you extrapolate why no one’s stoked to talk on Llm bots replacing them with low effort inaccurate “good-enough” fly-by-research summarization?

These are obvious for most people that’s why it’s low effort. You shouldn’t need to expound high-effort discussion just because you feel the low effort discussion doesn’t make a clear point or makes Llms look bad. The points are well discussed, and obvious. Hence low effort, hence sucky discourse.

Feel free to ignore and dismiss my perspective that doesn’t make me wrong or you right. It just makes you a bully.