> it's impossible to have this discussion with someone who will not touch generative AI tools with a 10 foot pole.
Why? Would you say the same if the topic was about recreational drugs? Or, to bring it closer to home, if the topic was about social media?
I think you're being disingenuous by making the analogy to religious people refusing to read a certain book. A book is a foundational source of information. OTOH, one can be informed about GenAI without having used GenAI; you can study the math behind the model, the transformer architecture, etc---the foundational sources of information on this topic. If our goal is to "drop the politics, and discuss things on their technical merits" well I don't see how it can get more purely technical than that.
The frustrating thing is when you're debating people who firmly believe that generative AI "has no utility"... but also refuse to ever try it themselves.
(Which they might even justify because they've read the transformer paper or whatever. That doesn't help inform you if these things actually have practical applications!)
Why? Would you say the same if the topic was about recreational drugs? Or, to bring it closer to home, if the topic was about social media?
I think you're being disingenuous by making the analogy to religious people refusing to read a certain book. A book is a foundational source of information. OTOH, one can be informed about GenAI without having used GenAI; you can study the math behind the model, the transformer architecture, etc---the foundational sources of information on this topic. If our goal is to "drop the politics, and discuss things on their technical merits" well I don't see how it can get more purely technical than that.