@jwcph @Wifiwits I did read the posts. You're a woodworker. You apply the logic of the tools you use to other things. It doesn't work. You know it, and that's why you're getting defensive and lashing out.

@Wifiwits @jwcph I am aware that dump trucks are not the same as LLMs. However, the original statement said "If loss of a tool..." and both dump trucks and LLMs are tools.

The original principle sounds appealing, but the appeal comes from its generality. But it is too broad. It captures too much. So we have to ask, why would this principle apply to LLMs if it doesn't apply to dump trucks?

Try not to respond with insults. It's far more interesting to actually engage with the point being made.

@jwcph @Wifiwits Is this your style? Just insult the other person? That's boring.

@jwcph What kind of response is that?

@Wifiwits @jwcph

Dump trucks are a tool. If we lose dump trucks, then we no longer have the ability & skills required to move large loads of gravel. Therefore, according to the general principle cited ( "If loss of a tool = loss of your skill & knowledge, then that tool isn't an asset, it's a liability") it follows that dump trucks are a liability.

But, of course, dump trucks are not a liability. They make it possible to do what we could not do before. Same with LLMs.

@jwcph

> "If loss of a tool = loss of your skill & knowledge, then that tool isn't an asset, it's a liability."

So, dump trucks are a liability?