I tried to read the article too and found it both visually unpleasant and intellectually unfocused. GP is making the rather comically clever point that ChatGPT is useful to summarize text that might be difficult for humans to parse, even a text claiming that ChatGPT is a useless model only capable of spewing Islamophobic speech and in need of burying. I mean the article ends on some tangent about reactionary solutionism... If you don't see the satire in that, well, you might be taking life too seriously.

While it may be frustrating to see comments from people who haven't read the article being discussed, it's important to recognize that everyone consumes and processes information in different ways. Some people may prefer to skim articles or jump straight to the comments section to get a sense of the wider conversation, rather than reading every detail of the article itself.

Some people may not have the time or the interest to read lengthy articles and may prefer to get the gist of the discussion through comments. It's important to keep an open mind and respect the ways in which others consume and engage with information.

—thus spake chatGPT

The article does not contribute anything new.

At this point if I see any variation of "bullshit generator" used to downplay the significance of LLMs I will instantly discount the author as a person who has already lost the plot.

Just smile politely and leave them to their devices as the world changes around them.

What about the people who actually read the original article word for word - aren't they the real victims?

AI is still not AI, still cannot pass the 'critical thinking' task.

I can prove this without having ever interacted with ChatGPT.

The problem with "A.I." is that it continues to only be able to take the 'almost best' sum of ideology and not invent new ideas. AI cannot innovate. It can only imitate.

It's tech-person-splaining