A very amusing post. I am amazed at the apparent ignorance of some of these so-called leaders about what "AI" is. They seem to think that these LLMs actually are intelligent, when in reality that term is just good ol' fraudulent labelling. They don't learn, they don't understand. They don't merely have no morals, they cannot have morals - it's like expecting your car to have morals, it's just preposterous. Someone much smarter than me came up with a great term to describe what "AIs" actually are: Stochastic parrots.

I also have to admit that the question of "why?" has never occurred to me. The only real use *now* that I am aware of is what you say - creating large amounts of junk text for manipulating google, marketing, overloading participation systems (e.g. in politics), etc. . Sure, you can use them to summarise stuff. But who'd want to, say, use an LLM to summarise legal cases when the LLM is so unreliable at doing it? Now, there are other things that are called "AI" that actually are quite useful, such as image upscaling technologies (e.g. nvidia's DLSS). Those actually work shockingly well. But I'm not sure whether they actually have any relationship whatsoever with LLMs. And you certainly don't need a building full of GPUs (let alone dedicated "AI" chips) to perform that task.