*cringes in multiple ways*

How this company can proceed to exist is beyond me.

For legal reasons I must emphasize that this is hear-say and should not be trusted as facts. At least one statement is a lie. What you believe to be true is up to you.

...and WoW: Forever Beta just released... :) :)

I'm basing this on my experience with vibe coding; asking an LLM to regurgitate code which compiles and does something is easy, but having it produce a meaningful project with changing/evolving requirements along the way, which follows an idea you are trying to describe carefully but evidently not well enough, is significantly harder and error prone [1].

At this point in my project I'm not sure if using Claude as the only way to implement changes was actually faster or better, vs. implementing it myself where an LLM only assists with functions and overall guidance. I feel that up to half of what Claude spends its tokens on at this point is fixing old code whenever it needs to work on the core functionality in some areas of my project.

[1] CoBirb hobby project: https://github.com/HeckerBirb/CoBirb/

Reminds me of the 2000's crazy of "if you let kids play violent video games they will become unstable, violent psychopaths when they grow up". Thank God I was able to (rather easily) convince my mom that the idea that I would also steal a car and beat somebody to death with a golf club in real life just because that's what I did in GTA on my PlayStation, was completely absurd.

I'm pretty sure you will be paid a large sum of money if you can make one of the frontier models urge you to commit suicide from normal interactions with it.

Would it matter if this digital friend is not a real human behind a computer screen, but a Language Model in a data center?

I guess it falls into a similar category as buying "special performances to satisfy certain urges". It probably feels close to the real thing (I wouldn't know, I've never tried - promise! :P), but it's never the same as love.

What "A Language Model" is differs from model to model. It's stating that it "being the thing known as 'Language Model'" is unable to carry out the request from the user, which is wrong. It's not because "it is a Language Model". A more accurate starting point could have been "The training data and restrictions applied to me...".

"As a Language Model I cannot tell you how to synthesize m*th" ("math" obviously)... yes you can, you're just trained not to, and that's OK! Just don't tell me it's because you're a Language Model.

I also appreciate privacy even though I "have nothing to hide" - just because I "have nothing to hide" it doesn't mean I want companies scanning my camera roll.

As a Human, I do not need to know it is a Language Model.

I don't want "jailbroken" LLMs to commit crime. I want them to avoid having this vendor-specific "bloatware" all over the product I'm using.

Your argument is true if the number of parameters in an LLM is the only measurement for quality - a bit like number of bolts per aircraft or lines of code in software. I'd bet you that an 8b parameter LLM will in 5 years outperform the datacenter-level LLMs of today.