@dalias @JetlagJen The purpose is to encourage the reader of the OP to think of a few things, as stated. Jen has provided a thought train, ending up with questions about my own post. Here's another example thought train:
- persuading people to think "Oh, I'm not people at the back, I'm not uninformed, I'm informed (now)" and to adopt what follows as a widely recognized fact as opposed to an opinion
- maybe it's a good purpose given the state of affairs around Gen AI and LLMs, but maybe we need less of that on social media (e.g. instead use "I think" or even "Important to hear", because it doesn't refer to anyone in any particular way (like "people at the back") and thus tries its best to not be manipulative or divisive)
- as given, it's an absolute statement, let's hope the author didn't actually mean it absolutely
- no, unless it's not absolute, then depends on what the author meant, and as absolute as it's given, such stand may lead us to miss out on possible good and ethical use cases, like any talk about searching for or even finding new non-exploitative non-snake oil use cases being automatically dismissed (e.g. considered simping for "AI" capitalists or something else depending on whatever way to dismiss fits best), oh, and similar applies to blockchain and crypto ("oh, look, so many bad uses, there must be no good use possible, let's not ever think of people with good intentions researching into more democratic ways to handle money and other areas, they're all scammers" kind of thinking)

Of course, don't take the above as the only correct or the best, it's just an example, after all the purpose is to encourage critical thinking. So, yeah, my response doesn't serve the purpose Cassandrich mentioned (I don't judge you for that). I think the purpose of my response is good