I would seriously consider if you've developed an imaginary caricature in your mind that you apply to people you don't know. Further, I would consider if any living person actually lives up to it.
Your objective points were addressed. Any response to your subjective point "Everything about this screams X" would itself be subjective and not conducive to productive conversation.
That the developers have already been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and called out on it and apologized once before (for, in their own words, "misrepresenting the license"), and they stated that they would/did remove the term "Open Source" from their site precisely in order to not confuse the issue...
... was, in fact, not addressed.
To the extent that my comment contains speculative claims, the charges are aligned with the developers' undisputed past behavior.
And given that it's blatantly obvious what's going on, even without their previous admission, no one has any obligation to pussyfoot around on things like giving the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt here—no reasonable doubt, at least. Only willful mendacity.
Please don't cross into personal attack or call names in arguments. We're trying for something different here, and you can make your substantive points without that.
Yes, the anecdote is not a good example. "The bull is dead" is tragic but irrelevant. It would be like "Milestone 4 missed. Joel is gone". Who's Joel? Is he on vacation? Did he quit? Was he fired for causing the missed milestone? Is he dead?
A set of hieroglyphs for a formally designed and recognized language that is in use to communicate is one thing. Endless bits of arbitrary clip art is another.
I bet it's fatigue from the endless <new shiny thing> hype. It's easy to fall into a routine of dismissing everything that claims to be new and interesting.
Natural selection is pretty much the opposite of heuristic. Complex adaptive systems embodied in self replicating chemical nanobots create random variation when they replicate. The varieties that can't reproduce or not as efficiently are dead ends. There is no teleology, and conditions change in non linear ways. There is no final condition, or any meaningful way to infer a better pathway in advance.
Evolution by natural selection is literally just biochemistry brute forcing survival.
Natural selection constrains the possible variation for each iteration so only a miniscule subset of possibilities is explored. That doesn't sound very brute-forcey to me.
It's not the selection that pose constraints. The random variation that occurs in the replication is going towards all possible adjacent possibilities spaces, by definition. Selection occurs only after this brute force, blind branching towards anything that can be changed at that stage.
So what, by your estimation, are LLMs best for? Because they seem good for serving up relevant bits of information from vast amounts of information. Why do you think it's the worst thing they are good at?
Because it's the most basic use. In a single prompt you can have the LLM serve up relevant bits covering multiple perspectives, contrast and compare the perspectives, analyze their effectiveness in a given problem domain, and then produce meaningful output towards a solution. Information retrieval is just step 1.
Consider a prompt like the following:
"Given the task: 'TASK GOES HERE', break it down into intermediate steps or 'thoughts'. Consider multiple different reasoning paths that could be taken to solve the task. Explore these paths individually, reflecting on the possible outcomes of each. Then, consider how you might backtrack or look ahead in each path to make global decisions. Based on this analysis, develop a final to do list and complete the first course of action."
reply