When considering phenomenon like these, I think people seriously underestimate what I'd call the "fashion effect". When a new technology, medium or aesthetic appears, it can have a surprisingly rapid influence on behaviour and discourse. The human social brain seems especially susceptible to novelty in this way.

Because the effects appear so fast and are often so striking, even disturbing, due to their unfamiliarity, it is tempting to imagine that they represent a fundamental transformation and break from the existing technological, social and moral order. And we extrapolate that their rapid growth will continue unchecked in its speed and intensity, eventually crowding out everything that came before it.

But generally this isn't what happens, because often what a lot of what we're seeing is just this new thing occupying the zeitgeist. Eventually, its novelty passes, the underlying norms of human behaviour reassert themselves, and society regresses to the mean. Not completely unchanged, but not as radically transformed as we feared either. The new phenomenon goes from being the latest fashion to overexposed and lame, then either fades away entirely, retreats to a niche, or settles in as just one strand of mainstream civilisational diversity.

LLMs will certainly have an effect on how humans reason and communicate, but the idea that they will so effortlessly reshape it is, in my opinion, rather naive. The comments in this thread alone prove that LLM-speak is already a well-recognised dialect replete with clichés that most people will learn to avoid for fear of looking bad.

Please explain how a bug can both be unvalidated, and also have undergone a three month process to determine it is a false positive?

And saying "ones that get less attention will continue to get less attention" is like imagining that only popular email addresses get spammed. Once malice is automated, everyone gets attention.

I don't quite understand this objection? If I won the lottery at odds of 10 million to 1, you'd say that was a very lucky purchase. But if it turned out I bought 10 million tickets, then that context would surely be important for interpreting what happened, even if the odds of that specific ticket winning would be unchanged?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YO-0HBKtA

My guess is it's because at this point the population of cities was growing quickly, but the large scale migration of farm laborers into them hadn't begun in earnest yet. So most of the housing being built at the edges was intended for the expanding merchant classes, who wanted something a bit more impressive, and who also had live in servants. The Georgian terraces of London are typically three or four storeys, with the top storey being rooms with low-ceilings where the servants lived.

"A true summary, the kind a human makes, requires outside context and reference points. Shortening just reworks the information already in the text."

Then later says...

"LLMs operate in a similar way, trading what we would call intelligence for a vast memory of nearly everything humans have ever written. It’s nearly impossible to grasp how much context this gives them to play with"

So, they can't summarize, because they lack context... but they also have an almost ungraspably large amount of context?

https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/

So, maybe this is just sloppiness and not intentionally misleading. But still, not a good look when the company burning through billions of dollars in cash and promising to revolutionize all human activity can't put together a decent powerpoint.