No. Don't giving people free passes because of LLMs. Be responsible for your work.

They submitted an article with absolute lies and now the company has a reputational problem on its hands. No one cares if that happened because they sought out to publish lies or if it was because they made a tee-hee whoopsie-doodle with an LLM. They screwed up and look at the consequences they've caused for the company.

> I think for some people this could be a redeemable mistake at their job. If someone turns in a status report with a hallucination, that’s not good clearly but the damage might be a one off / teaching moment.

Why would you keep someone around who:

1. Lies

2. Doesn't seem to care enough to do their work personally, and

3. Doesn't check their work for the above-mentioned lies?

They have proven, right then, right there, that you can't trust their output because they cut corners and don't verify it.

They HAD a relationship: it was 20 years of volunteer work. That relationship was broken by Mozilla's actions.

If it doesn't seem to work very well, it's because you're obviously prompting it wrong.

If it doesn't boost your productivity, either you're the problem yourself, or, again, you're obviously using it wrong.

If progress in LLMs seems to be stagnating, you're obviously not part of the use cases where progress is booming.

When you have presupposed that LLMs and this particular AI boom is definitely the future, all comments to the contrary are by definition incorrect. If you treat it as a given that this AI boom will succeed (by some vague metric of "success") and conquer the world, skepticism is basically a moral failing and anti-progress.

The exciting part about this belief system is how little you actually have to point to hard numbers and, indeed, rely on faith. You can just entirely vibe it. It FEELS better and more powerful to you, your spins on the LLM slot machine FEEL smarter and more usable, it FEELS like you're getting more done. It doesn't matter if those things are actually true over the long run, it's about the feels. If someone isn't sharing your vibes about the LLM slot machine, that's entirely their fault and problem.

If the other take is luddite, then what's this? Source: "dude trust me"?

This part sticks out to me because, in this article presumably about empathy, we couldn't help ourselves but to bring up "also, there could be incredible value to you, personally, for doing this". We couldn't resist, we couldn't make the article purely about the person who got fired, we gotta bring it back to me for a second. We need to talk about this caring outreach as a transaction.

Not only does it read like a vulture's mentality to talk bout how you might gain from another person losing their job, it makes me question the author's future communications. If Moore hypothetically reached out to me with an empathetic hand, and I had seen this part of the article, I'd be stuck on it. Is he reaching to me because he actually cares about me, or is he more interested in the potential value reaching out to me would give? I mean, he wrote it out right here, so it's on his mind as a factor.

If only there was an easier way to "select" a character on a website instead of having to effin' handwrite it out on a separate app.