Top comment is quite naive. With that populist rhetoric you can defend anything.
Can we contribute to the dialog rather than bash someone’s thoughts on it?
As a start, why do you disagree and how would you further this discussion?
Cause they are anti LLM and it seems such people need to not just have their stance but whack everyone with it.
i am anti llm for my own reasons but i dont expect others to be copies of me :-). its very silly to be negative to others or their works just because you have a different opinion.
why is it naive and populist rethoric? any reasoning behind that comment?
Can we contribute to the dialog rather than bash someone’s thoughts on it?
As a start, why do you disagree and how would you further this discussion?
Cause they are anti LLM and it seems such people need to not just have their stance but whack everyone with it.
i am anti llm for my own reasons but i dont expect others to be copies of me :-). its very silly to be negative to others or their works just because you have a different opinion.
why is it naive and populist rethoric? any reasoning behind that comment?