No, opposing LLMs isn't "purity culture." I've seen this now from quite a few different people, and I disagree vehemently. It is good, actually, to have moral principles and hold to them, even when people with more money than you find said principles annoying.

Hell, if you disagree with me and think I'm wrong on the merits, then by all means make that argument! (Preferably not in my mentions, I'm tired of this whole debacle and am not personally open to changing my mind on LLMs right now.)

But "purity culture" isn't an argument, it's an appeal to the idea that holding principles is *bad*.

(What do I mean when I say I'm not open to changing my mind on the issue at the moment? I mean that when I've tried to be open minded, I get flooded with bad-faith bullshit and outright propaganda. My being closed-minded here is a temporary and reasoned position about conserving my own energies, and not letting people DDoS my rationality. I don't think that the Discourse™ around LLMs is *currently* at a place where opposition to boosterism benefits from open-mindedness.)
I wouldn't be saying all this if it was just Doctorow, I'm even fine disagreeing with people I deeply respect. But he's not the only one saying shit like this, and I think it's worth calling out the broader rhetorical point.
@xgranade guessing I missed something Doctorow said... and it sounds like I'm glad I did, because I like that my eyes have not currently rage melted out of my skull.
Acting ethically in an imperfect world

Life is complicated. Regardless of what your beliefs or politics or ethics are, the way that we set up our society and economy will often force you to act against them: You might not want to fly somewhere but your employer will not accept another mode of transportation, you want to eat vegan but are […]

Smashing Frames