This isn't an attack on the technology, it's an observation: we're about to, once again, let the same people profit while treating everyone else as cash cows. Just like every other time these people get the chance. Under the cover of "we're doing it for the good of humanity," they line their pockets a little more.
The article explicitly acknowledges the value and the power of AI. The problem isn't the tool, it's that it's in the wrong hands: instead of benefiting everyone, it'll only benefit a handful of people whose interests are in the wrong place.
And about the "ai-isms": maybe the author used AI to structure an idea and source the piece. Refusing to use a tool just because you criticize how it's being used would be missing the entire point. The critique isn't about the hammer, it's about who's holding it and who it's hitting.
I can imagine conversing with a voice assistant if it could process complex language queries, rather than the current restricted tasks (e.g., setting alarms, playing music, checking the weather, turning on lights).
Research in this area is flourishing, so it is certain that LLMs will improve. The popularity of LLMs is partly due to the fact that it has become natural to interact with an "intelligent" computer program. ChatGPT makes this natural, and combining a smart speaker with LLMs would make it even more so.
Enabling a "closed" conversation mode initially, similar to what the free version of ChatGPT does, would be harmless unless people take language model-generated words as absolute truth. This mode could be used to learn new things while cooking and save long conversations to a notes app for later reference. Wouldn't this be an attractive feature for buyers?
This isn't an attack on the technology, it's an observation: we're about to, once again, let the same people profit while treating everyone else as cash cows. Just like every other time these people get the chance. Under the cover of "we're doing it for the good of humanity," they line their pockets a little more. The article explicitly acknowledges the value and the power of AI. The problem isn't the tool, it's that it's in the wrong hands: instead of benefiting everyone, it'll only benefit a handful of people whose interests are in the wrong place.
And about the "ai-isms": maybe the author used AI to structure an idea and source the piece. Refusing to use a tool just because you criticize how it's being used would be missing the entire point. The critique isn't about the hammer, it's about who's holding it and who it's hitting.