Anyway, I don’t think anything I said was even framed morally (although of course I have my personal opinions). My prediction is just that the amount and average quality of paid creative work is going to massively decline. To me, the scale difference matters a lot (compared to impact of previous tech). I hope I’m wrong.

I guess my point is that there is a decent sized middle class of creative professionals right now, and I expect that the number of them will go down significantly due to AI. Seems like art will become more and more restricted to hobbyists and the lucky few who achieve mainstream success.

This is kind of what happened with photography. But I think the scale is much bigger, affecting all creative industries.

It might not be the best security idea to rely on a relatively obscure browser like this, but I find it very pleasant to use.

I'm not saying that it couldn't be true, but we have no way of concluding that from just comparing such rates. There are many differences in daily life and thresholds for reporting beyond surveillance levels.

Are you objecting to ICML’s reciprocal reviewing policy?

The alternative as I see it would be to charge for submissions and pay reviewers. There are pros but also clear cons when it comes to fairness.

And they didn't give a permanent ban or anything, these authors can just resubmit to another conference, of which there are many.

Words mean something, if you promise to uphold a contract and break it, there are consequences. The reviewers were free to select the policy which allows LLM use.

I think I would only switch from Overleaf if I was writing a textbook or something similarly involved.