> There’s a lot of unpack here, and I won’t go too deep because you can’t really have a discussion with affected folks

Do you think it is any more possible to have a proper discussion with someone who preemptively paints the other person as mentally ill? Or someone who preemptively victimizes themselves?

Cause I don't think these are the hallmarks of an honest discussion. See also the entire past decade of political discourse.

Like, consider this:

> It is weirdly religious in a way, because if you were to present contrary evidence (e.g. experts in a field weighing in about how plausible sounding responses are bunk), you would only be told you don’t believe enough in the long term potential and capabilities.

A trivial counter to this is that you can just be an expert at something (e.g. your own work), use the damn thing yourself (professionally), and evaluate the outcomes for yourself. Then maybe remark "LLM good".

Now you come and remark "LLM bad", and point at random "evidence", either of outright other workloads, or even the one at hand: you're asking someone to reject the reality they've already experienced, entirely based on the assumption that they're "merely religious" or "in psychosis". You tell me if that's any more epistemically rigorous and sensible than their story.