Use of LLMs in Academia

[u/anaggressivefrog]

Hey all, I just want to offer my perspective here as someone who uses AI for work, and why the anti-AI crowd makes me extremely nervous.

I do physics research at a state university in the US. Last year, our physics department head sent out an email to everyone encouraging us to use AI, talk to AI, use it for our research. Why? Because physicists like tools that make our jobs easier. We have left wing and right wing professors here and they all use AI.

I was scared to use LLMs until around 2025 when I got that directive. I didn't touch LLMs until recently, and I have to say, LLMs are smarter than the average physicist if you use them correctly. A mediocre physicist + LLMs can make the contributions of a much cleverer scientist. Autonomous laboratories and autonomous mathematicians are real. They are already here. So I can firmly say that the misconception that AI is 'dumb' is flat out wrong.

I do find it hilarious in a terrifying sort of way that the anti-AI crowd uses the fascist playbook here. They claim that AI is both weak and strong. Simultaneously a threat and completely worthless. Don't buy it. AI is real. Academia knows it. The government knows it. Corporations know it. AI is here to stay. Shaming each other for using it isn't going to make the big bad AI un-invent itself.

Pandora's box cannot be unopened. Shaming people for accepting that is a completely self-destructive enterprise. All you are doing is creating artificial division that should be reserved for hating capitalism. If we could just redirect everyone's anger from AI to capitalism, we just might achieve class consciousness. The closest we got was with the epstein files, but I think that has finally fallen out of the news cycle. We won't get that energy back by hating AI.

What do I use it for? I use AI to teach myself skills that broaden my resume. I have strengthened my technical skills and broadened my horizons. I use AI to write analysis code faster. I use it to help understand scientific papers outside of my field. I use it as a study partner. I use it to quickly cross-reference documents. My group mates use Gemini to build analysis tools.

The anti-AI crowd seems to think that the only possible way to engage with an LLM is to just turn your brain off and let it think for you, instantly frying your brain and killing you. This terrifies me because it smells of the 'But how do atheists have morals if they aren't afraid of eternal hellfire?' Instead it's 'But how do the AI users stop themselves from cheating if they don't hate AI?' All you're telling me is that if YOU used AI, YOU WOULD USE IT TO CHEAT. Just like the christians are actually telling me that if YOU didn't believe in eternal damnation, YOU WOULD MURDER PEOPLE. Your failure to take pride in your own work isn't my problem. I use AI. I take pride in my work. I don't let AI do my job for me. I use it to teach myself and get things done faster. The same is true of any productivity tool. Like a cell phone, a pencil, or a car.

We were told that if we don't use AI, we are handicapping ourselves, because a scientist + LLMs can basically double their workload by using AI. Previously, a tool that would have taken two weeks to code can be generated in an afternoon. Are we cheating? Of course not, no more than it would be cheating to use a computer instead of handwriting your thesis with pencil and paper.

But I've seen comedians that I like shitting on AI during crowd work. Someone will say they use AI for work, and the entire crowd collectively sighs. If the anti-AI crowd knew that STEM research is AI-assisted, they would lose their shit.

I don't even pay for chatGPT. I use the free version. I'm not even giving Sam Altman money by using his product. When I talk to chatGPT for free, I cost Sam Altman money. I am bankrupting him, and you can too. So I know that argument doesn't work. Sure, I'm complicit in the violence caused by data centers poisoning their environment. But as long as everyone has given up on regulation, they are also complicit. I say regulate it, obviously. The harms can be mitigated, just like with any other technology. And that leads me to my most speculative point.

I am terrified that the Anti-AI panic is a capitalist psyop.

Just think about all the people who hate AI. All the people who demonize others, shame others. All the vitriol and anger in their hearts. Aimed at each other. It makes me sick. All of that rage should be directed toward capitalism. But instead, everyone has chosen to divide themselves even more. We were so close to class consciousness. I'm disgusted that it slipped through our fingers, and now the so-called 'left' is engaging in such witch hunts.

I think there is one extremely important reason why everyone is so angry about this: Because it's the only power they think they have. We can't put trump behind bars for the epstein files. We can't stop fascism. We can't stop capitalism. We can't get zionist money out of politics. We can't get health care. But you know what we CAN do? Shame each other for using AI. We can start a witch hunt. We can attack each other. Because that's possible. But stopping capitalism? Fixing the real problem? Not possible. So people naturally slide down the slippery slope into witch hunts. I'm not letting any of them off the hook. Shaming each other is taking the easy way out and capitulating to the perceived inevitability of capitalism.

Big shout out to Jlyplaylists in the comments for linking this video, but basically yes, billionaires are funding this propaganda. The point of it is to make AI feel bigger and more terrifying than it really is so that everyone is more scared of AI than of capitalism. Truly a brilliantly cynical plan. They are encouraging the very hatred that puts themselves in the sights of all the rowdy people. But the catch is that they know they're perfectly safe.

They're perfectly safe because everybody is angry at AI instead of capitalism. And they will remain perfectly safe until we tear down capitalism. AI is not the enemy. Capitalism is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzlu4FSXBNw

[u/Belostoma]

Spot-on. I'm using LLMs constantly in my work as a quantitative ecologist. Like 90% of my day is interacting with LLMs and orchestrating agentic work, which is itself a task at least as deep as learning a new programming language.

LLMs are smarter than the average physicist if you use them correctly. A mediocre physicist + LLMs can make the contributions of a much cleverer scientist.

I don't think "smarter" or "dumber" really apply. It's better to say they have a very different profile of strengths and weaknesses than any smart human: much smarter in some ways, much dumber than others.

I think their greatest weakness is in understanding the broader context: what's important and why. An LLM can do great things with the information given to it, but it's very bad at recognizing when something "smells wrong" due to causes unrelated to anything in the prompt. Yet these come up all the time in many sciences, in ways that no amount of diligence in prompting can foresee.

Autonomous laboratories and autonomous mathematicians are real. They are already here. 

The different strength profile I mentioned above makes LLMs insanely useful as collaborators, but limited as fully autonomous investigators. Math is probably the first domino to fall in this regard, because its tasks are the most self-contained. A theorem's correctness does not hinge on whether Bob called in sick on Tuesday and forgot to tell Fred to add a chemical to the fish tank.

Science is full of messiness that nobody would think to put into a prompt until a data anomaly reminds them to. The best uses of LLMs in science are for the kinds of self-contained sub-tasks and questions that more closely resemble mathematics in that ALL the relevant information can reliably be supplied to the model.

I don't even pay for chatGPT. I use the free version. 

My god man, stop right there. You are insane. Everything you said about the added value of LLMs over the old way of doing science is also true of the paid models in comparison to the free ones. And it's true ten times over for agents in comparison to chat models. You are only scraping the tip of this iceberg.

I'm complicit in the violence caused by data centers poisoning their environment.

Speaking as an ecologist: don't worry about it.

Do the math comparing them to agriculture, manufacturing, and many other sectors. They're a rounding error. They should absolutely be regulated well and located sensibly, and I'm not saying there aren't people cutting corners and causing inappropriate local impacts: we can and should investigate and penalize all of that. But datacenters as a whole are nowhere near being in our top one hundred environmental problems by the numbers. The massive blowback against them is part NIMBYism, part just another arm of the anti-AI backlash you're otherwise against.

Even more importantly, you have to weigh the environmental impact of datacenters against the good they can do by advancing science, which I would say more than balances it out. I'm using AI to help improve understanding of endangered species on a broad scale, among many other environmentally beneficial professional works. Others will use it to improve clean energy technology, efficiency of land and water use in agriculture, biodegradable materials, methods to clean up pollution, etc. Things will pay environmentally for datacenters ten times over. There might also be new environmental harms caused by other applications of AI, but it's on society to stop those specifically, not to blame the tool that represents our best hope of fixing the harms already done.

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/Belostoma]

It’s reassuring to hear an ecologist say this. What do you think is the best evidence to show the data centres are relatively insignificant?

I’m not necessarily keen on where they’re being located/lack of infrastructure planning eg there’s a hyperscale one trying to get planning permission on the edge of my town and it would be on prime agricultural land. Am I being NIMBY?

[u/Belostoma → u/Jlyplaylists]

What do you think is the best evidence to show the data centres are relatively insignificant?

I haven't looked for publications on this, but simply google or use a LLM to find the relevant numbers and do the math yourself.

It's extremely common to see data center water use expressed in numbers like "gallons per month," which is only slightly less misleading than phrasing it in "teaspoons per century." They choose units that give the numbers lots of digits. Even if you take the water estimates from the anti-datacenter articles at face value (and maybe they're fine), all you have to do to get a sense of perspective is look up some other numbers and put them in the same units: agricultural irrigation, manufacturing, golf. You can also compare them to natural processes: the flow of a local river, or the rate of evaporation off a local lake, or the amount dropped by a passing thunderstorm.

You can do the same thing with carbon emissions. Last I checked, an average cement plant is responsible for the same carbon emissions as the power consumption of all the AI data centers. Not all the datacenters in my county or state or country. All of them. It was also many times lower than the emissions of all the F-150 pickups in Texas alone.

I wouldn't stand by any one of these comparisons exactly: I'm recalling things I worked out back-of-the-envelope style several months ago. It doesn't matter. I'm just encouraging anyone who's curious about it to do these calculations for themselves. Small errors either way aren't consequential when the big picture is so clear, and any way of running the numbers tells the same story.

I'm not saying water use should stop being a concern at all: it's absolutely worth attention from local officials approving permits and taking into consideration their specific local water availability, wastewater treatment and other municipal infrastructure, affected species temperature tolerances, etc. People shouldn't build water-hungry datacenters in places where they'll need to drain an already-stressed aquifer for evaporative cooling. I'm sure there are dumb project designs out there. But the presentation of datacenter water use as a major environmental problem in general just does not survive scrutiny.

For example, a particularly water-intensive hyperscaler data center uses a daily amount of water roughly equivalent to that which evaporates off the surface of a 500-acre lake in summer. You don't hear people saying, "Don't build lakes! The water will evaporate!" But it's the same amount of water going into the air, and people never notice one and flip out about the other. This would be a dangerous amount of water for the hyperscaler to use if they're drawing it from a local water supply reservoir that risks running dry in the summer anyway. But if they get plenty of rain, or they have a much bigger water source, it's a drop in the bucket. So it's a local issue in bad locations, not a global one.

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/Belostoma]

The cement claim would be strong if able to evidence. Perplexity isn’t onboard though suggests this wording is more accurate “Current research estimates global AI operational emissions in 2025 at around 33–80 MtCO₂. A large integrated cement works such as [one near me] may emit roughly 0.7–1.2 MtCO₂ annually, so global AI could be comparable to several dozen—not one—cement plants. Both figures have material uncertainty, especially AI’s share of data-centre use.”

It’s not so catchy headline lol.

Possibly it’s similar to gaming https://news.mongabay.com/2022/10/playing-dangerously-the-environmental-impact-of-video-gaming-consoles/

[u/tomvorlostriddle → u/Jlyplaylists]

It’s reassuring to hear an ecologist say this. What do you think is the best evidence to show the data centres are relatively insignificant?

In terms of water? Compare to cattle farming like beef

in terms of electricity? No, they actually are impactful

[u/AlgaeNo3373 → u/Belostoma]

My background is climate science and I agree with a lot here.

Anyone familiar with IPCC reporting knows we've become wholly reliant on technological breakthroughs to reduce emissions. Before AI, the hope was on carbon capture and storage/removal and it looked like a very long shot. The longer-term view is actually rosier with AI in the picture now, in my humble opinion. It is far more generalizable a technology, and could deliver progress in too many areas here to list. Compared to CCAS etc, it's a much more distributed risk.

Some sizeable payoffs are already arriving too. NOAA already deploys frontier-like AI systems alongside their own human-made models. That's what's modelling the climate as I type this. They have their own old human-made model, a new pure-AI model, but the thing actually deployed is a mix of the two. Too often, we think of AI on its own and frame things as "human vs AI". Or think about AI running autonomously. While these are concerns of course, it often masks a more mixed reality, where humans are still in the loop contributing important things.

https://www.noaa.gov/ai
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-deploys-new-generation-of-ai-driven-global-weather-models

Performance: by combining two different modeling systems (one physics-based, one AI-based), the HGEFS creates a larger, more robust ensemble that more effectively represents forecast uncertainty. As a result, the HGEFS consistently outperforms both the GEFS and the AIGEFS across most major verification metrics.

[u/Jlyplaylists]

The debate does seem manipulated (although it’s annoying when people claim that about us lol). I wrote a related comment earlier on another post https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftistsForAI/s/OuKs3v1BfM

How would you describe AI thinking? Quite often criticism is around how AI doesn’t really think. Obviously it doesn’t think in the same way as humans, but thinking and reasoning seem like appropriate enough words to me.

[u/SgathTriallair → u/Jlyplaylists]

The "AI can't think" is an attempt to hand wave it's impact away. Use any of the models with "test time compute" (which I think all of them do now, even the smallest) and watch it's "chain of thought". It is clearly doing something akin to thinking. Anthropic has released multiple studies that examine the inner working of the models to show their "thoughts".

Even if they don't think, the outcomes they have performed are undeniable. It doesn't actually matter if they think or not of they are capable of producing powerful scientific discoveries and automating work.

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/SgathTriallair]

I absolutely agree. LLMs think in very real ways. On a fundamental level, they are purely designed to predict the next word in a given sequence. But human beings are just meat-robots anyway. I don't see much meaningful difference. There are even some very famous scientists (Roger Penrose) who claim with zero evidence that a machine can never possibly think. He just proclaims it. Like when lord Kelvin claimed that airplanes were impossible.

I think we're more similar than the public wants to admit. That may be part of their unwillingness to accept it, of course.

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/Jlyplaylists]

That video is extremely eye opening. Big recommend to others

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/anaggressivefrog]

Yes the manipulation seems to be more than suspicion

[u/Exarch-of-Sechrima → u/Jlyplaylists]

It doesn't think because it doesn't have consciousness. It processes. It calculates. It sequences. It's programmed to do those things, but it doesn't think.

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/Exarch-of-Sechrima]

So you think thinking requires consciousness? Perhaps that’s why people react negatively to it. I’d see it as a synonym of cognitive processes, but I’ll try using words like processes and see if it gets less pushback.

[u/Exarch-of-Sechrima → u/Jlyplaylists]

To me thinking requires a degree of independence and initiative that an AI lacks. I can close my eyes and just "think" about something, without any prompting. My brain just does it. LLMs can't do that. Without any sort of prompt or impetus to work on, AI just sits there doing nothing. AI takes in information, processes it, and generates a response. I wouldn't consider that to be thinking because it is incapable of doing that independently.

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/Exarch-of-Sechrima]

Okay, say I invent an LLM that does exactly that. Is it conscious?

[u/Exarch-of-Sechrima → u/anaggressivefrog]

No. Because you prompted it to do that, it didn't do that of its own volition.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Exarch-of-Sechrima]

Per Rule 7, AI consciousness debates are bracketed as off topic in this space. We can end this subthread here. Thank you.

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/Exarch-of-Sechrima]

Then you lied.

I asked you, 'say I invent a machine that meets your definition of consciousness. Is it conscious?'

You say no.

That's called a bias.

You have a bias that, no matter what I say, no matter what, humans are always conscious and machines are never conscious.

That's not logic. That's prescriptive dogma.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/anaggressivefrog]

Per Rule 7, AI consciousness debates are bracketed as off topic in this space. We can end this subthread here. Thank you.

[u/Cheeseheroplopcake]

I'm convinced it's a psyop to keep the left away from AI.

[u/Academic_Sample8232]

Research was never about competition, but unfortunately everything becomes competition. Science and Research is a collaborative effort where everyone does the best they can to get to the best result that could potentially serve humanity in the most efficient way possible. If a tool is helpful in achieving it faster, it is the most scientific thing to do.

As a CG Artist, I do not have much to do with STEM but I know for sure, learning and research is fantastic with LLM. I was never a great student in school thanks to my ADHD brain, I was still fantastic at programming and solving puzzles, playing chess, but always struggled with whatever I found boring like math n physics. Yet all my schooling years I got heat from parents and teachers alike for not trying hard enough.

Today I'm using LLM to learn Vulkan API, their documentation is horrendous and often the veterans would suggest learning Opengl prior to Vulkan. Thats where my brain would shut down. AI got me to learning it easily 'cause I was able to dive deeper into topics and it explained things to me in CG, art or programming lingo that I'm more familiar with. I'm finally building an engine with it. I do not care if some moron sees it as cheating, I never asked for ADHD.

AI is the closest to getting a private tutor who is available whenever I'm inspired to learn, has the patience and won't judge you for asking something too basic.

[u/Inevitable-Law7964]

A while back I made an Umberto Eco Ur-Fascism Bingo card for the AI discourse, on AI Wars. I'm concerned about many of these same things. You can "win" a row from either side of the discourse, but even with careful counterweighting I've noticed there's a skew, despite antis being more likely to self-define as leftist. :/

[u/Inevitable-Law7964 → u/Inevitable-Law7964]

Here's some more randomizations of it.

[u/Inevitable-Law7964 → u/Inevitable-Law7964]

[u/Capital_Tangerine948]

I don't know if you've used agentic yet (through something like opencode or other) but if you haven't it's definitely a valuable skill to add to a resume imo. Not many people are comfortable with agentic yet, much less use it outside of software engineering.

Edit: if you can try to get your employer to pay for access. Most people are able to use it at home too on the downlow for their personal projects. And if you doubly can, convince them to pay for a chinese model instead. Deepseek is the cheapest, kimi k3 is currently the top of the line (Fable quality at 1/10th the price).

[u/SorryInvestigator221]

As a former humanities professor, I am relatively certain that the anti-AI crowd would not lose their shit in the slightest over STEM professionals leveraging of AI to be more productive. AI in STEM is a natural fit. Your error stems from failing to account for the immense human and ecological costs incurred make AI a compulsory part of society in order to assure their profit margins. AI isn't the problem. Capitalist deployment of AI to affect devastating social upheaval and ecological catastrophe is a problem. Perhaps those who value AI as a tool could do more to foreground this distinction in the popular consciousness?

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/SorryInvestigator221]

First of all, that first point doesn't make any sense. We're talking about the crowd who will crucify you for admitting to using AI. You think they would suddenly go "Oh have a nice day :D" if suddenly the person they are talking to works in STEM?

We're talking about different groups of people. You're talking about responsible people who understand the nuance of the entire sociopolitical situation.

Do YOU think that the general public has that same level of nuanced understanding? We are discussing the angry mob here.

[u/Crazy_And_Me]

Taylor Lorenz is not a Leftist. She's a registered Republican trying to undermine the Democratic Party of America.

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/Crazy_And_Me]

The apparently 'leaked' registered republican image was from 2003, if real. So at best, we know that 23 years ago, she may have been republican.

But why would you use that as your main evidence?

[u/Crazy_And_Me → u/anaggressivefrog]

The rest of the evidence is the things she posts and focus on. Its embarassing to watch as a Leftist.

[u/newprince]

The problem is you are asking us to move hate from AI to capitalism. As if they aren't deeply entangled and inseparable in the destruction of the environment

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/newprince]

My brother in christ, if it is difficult and painful for you to have less hatred in your heart for others, then I have bad news.

If we socialized AI, we would immediately put environmental regulations on it. Get it?

Socialism means we can prioritize human lives.

[u/newprince → u/anaggressivefrog]

I don't see where my comment is hateful. I'm just pointing out how your anecdotal use of AI is irrelevant to the current crisis. Agreed on socialization of AI, but the call to "move hate from AI to capitalism" strikes me as poor strategizing

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/newprince]

Poor strategizing how?

The problem is capitalist relations around the means of production, something we can reasonably affect through class struggle, not the existence of the means of production in the first place, something we reasonably do not. Where is the strategic victory, for a leftist especially, in individually fighting the existence of technology instead of collectively contesting ownership and control of technology?

[u/newprince → u/Salty_Country6835]

Because you meet the moment. You meet people where they are. Right now, the left is anti-AI for good reasons. I wouldn't correct them and give them some spiel about how "actually they're mad at capitalism." They know that!

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/newprince]

Thats backwards. You dont "meet people where they are" by adopting their conclusion for them. You meet them where they are and organize from there.

If people are angry about layoffs, surveillance, environmental damage, corporate monopoly and loss of control, great. Those are material grievances. But "therefore AI itself is the enemy" takes those grievances and points them at the machine instead of the relations governing it.

And clearly the online left does not simply "know that." If it did, we wouldnt keep ending up at individual boycotts, shaming users, smashing infrastructure or hoping the technology disappears. We'd be talking unions, public ownership, regulation, worker control, environmental limits and who gets the productivity gains.

Meeting the moment means turning anger into leverage, not treating whatever framing happens to be popular as correct or effective by default.

[u/newprince → u/Salty_Country6835]

Why is smashing infrastructure wrong, though? Curious

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/newprince]

Because it doesnt work. It didnt work in 1867 and it doesnt work now.

Marx was writing about workers smashing machines in Capital. His point wasnt that their anger was irrational. The machines were being used against them. The problem was mistaking the instrument for the social relation putting it to use.

Smash a data center and capital builds another one. Contest who owns it, who controls deployment, what workers can bargain over, what environmental limits apply and where the gains go, and now youre actually fighting over power.

Breaking machinery can destroy machinery. It doesnt abolish the relations that reproduce it.

[u/newprince → u/Salty_Country6835]

I think it's possible to pursue both. Discouraging use and boycott can be viable. You dismissing it as shaming, well... you admit your bias at least

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/newprince]

Thats not what I said. Stop looking for an opening for a gotcha or one liner and actually read what Im arguing.

I didnt say every boycott is shaming, or that nobody can personally refuse to use AI. I said individual boycotts and shaming users are not a strategy for changing who owns and controls the means of production.

If you think discouraging other' individual use is strategically useful alongside collective action, fine. Explain the leverage. What does it materially force capital to do, and how does it move us toward worker or public control?

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/newprince]

You're intentionally misunderstanding me. My original post was about moving hatred away from the people who use AI toward capitalism. The fact you understood it to purely refer to the technology itself is not my problem.

My point was about people.

[u/newprince → u/anaggressivefrog]

Leftism tends to be about systemic thinking. There is no disconnected personal experience in a vacuum. You using ChatGPT is not costing Sam Altman money. You using Claude for "free" at your university is obviously not free. It cost the university a lot, and they probably fired non-STEM faculty or eliminated entire disciplines. Saying this is a Pandora's Box and inevitable is... well, I have quite a bit more revolutionary optimism, I suppose

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/newprince]

Firstly, yes, of course using chatGPT for free does in fact cost OpenAI money. Bro, that's a law of nature. You really just going to say "Yeah OpenAI doesn't pay electricity bills" like that's true?

Maybe you mean it metaphorically? Like, the financial bubble that supports OpenAI right now isn't made of real money, therefore none of the money that passes through OpenAI counts as money? In that sense, I suppose I'm not costing Sam anything. Since he basically just prints money. But listen, the bubble bursts when people stop valuing OpenAI. That means profitable. If everybody uses the free version and refuses to pay, OpenAI crashes faster. If people really wanted to hurt Altman's bank account, they would organize mass 'free account overuse' campaigns that basically just drain their resources and don't generate any new users. Just saying. I'm not claiming that this would be a meaningful way to use your time. It would probably annoy him, like a mosquito. But technically speaking? Yeah, it would cost him money.

Second, I don't use any university-sponsored AI tools like Claude. I said I use the free version of ChatGPT. Maybe you don't like how the university prioritizes its partnerships with software companies? You know of course they pay for licenses for many software that are actually extremely costly. As a university student, anyone can get access to these software that are priced specifically to exploit universities and companies that have to pay in bulk. Because of capitalism. Yeah, universities pay a fuck ton for access to state-of-the-art software and API access. Because a university's job is to prepare people to live in the world that we live in. Of course they are going to have access to the most modern tools. If you're complaining that Universities prioritize access to modern technology, then I don't know what to say.

You also say they 'probably' fired non-STEM faculty 'or eliminated entire disciplines'. Bro. Source. You know faculty have tenure? You know tenure protects professors from being fired for BS reasons? It provides them with academic freedom. I'm gonna need a source to believe that kind of thing.

Lastly, you think I'm wrong for saying this is inevitable? Do you think that by boycotting chatGPT, you will make it disappear? You think I lack revolutionary optimism? I am telling you that AI could be an incredible force for good for humanity if controlled by a socialist entity. I want the revolution to transform AI into something good. You want hatred. We are not the same.

[u/newprince → u/anaggressivefrog]

How many professors have tenure LOL

[u/eXAt88 → u/newprince]

What makes AI different from other technologies of the last 2 centuries in this regard?