Pretty naive

That is not at all what the comment you responded to said.

Rather, if you are of the mindset that you want to work the bare minimum to get by in life, then what constitutes the bare minimum is probably more when you're in an office.

To cast those who enjoy their work as having no meaningful life outside of work is small minded and jealous.

OpenAI keeps positioning itself as a scrappy little innovator, and anything that makes it harder for them to become the next trillion dollar company is anti-competitive. But the amount of funding they've received in proportion to their revenue is truly astounding. If anything is anti-competitive, it's that Softbank, MS, and others have poured billions into this one company in hopes of burying the chances of other startups. If the feds should do anything (which I doubt), it's to ban further investment in OpenAI.

Investors as a whole began scrutinizing earnings and stock prices of FAANGs and other high growth companies much more closely starting in 2022. While this may amount to an accounting change if you can float the bill for a few years, it should affect the stock price in a regime where investors care about p/e ratios. The stock price is the C-suite's duty to protect, and also affects cost of capital. So leadership will take steps to cut short term costs. This is all theoretical though. I'm curious what the actual measured impact on profitability is for mag7.

Wouldn't every theory/model of the universe leave room for follow up questions? Why is it problematic if it doesn't answer literally every conceivable quandary?

Rather than getting away with it, people gain power through bullshit.

Sam seems to model himself after Elon, the most effective bs artist out there (even if you or I don't fall for it, humanity collectively has decided to hand him the greatest amount of capital for a pretty modest amount of actual economic impact).

Well, most of the LLM-generated code i serve are unit tests (and scripts), so hopefully, those are good enough to catch my mistakes :)

If that argument were to save anyone, it would have saved the lawyers too.

No, the other 30% was "down cycled". 0% were recycled into something that had as much value as the original material.

Yes, but it's not reasonable to expect these bags to be recycled in the same value level - the bags are dyed, contaminated with additives and other recyclables etc. Plus, if they are recycled into fabrics that prevent the use of virgin plastics of fabrics, it still has reduce eco footprint vs landfill or incineration.

All of which to say is "downcycled" is still better than nothing. Although, in a sense the real nothing - not having a wasted bag in the first place - would be the real solution.

If that were possible we'd have already pointed LLMs at the Linux bug tracker (for example) and fixed all the open issues.

Was all that code written by LLMs?

I think you're missing the point. You should be providing the ideas in any piece of text you write. The boring prose style is not the major objection being expressed here.