But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.
Person you replied to:
they intentionally use suggestive language that leads people to think AI is approaching human cognition. This helps with hype, investment, and PR.
Your response:
As do all companies in the world. If you want to buy a hammer, the company will sell it as the best hammer in the world. It's the norm.
Corporations are motivated by profit, not doing what's best for humanity. If you need an example of "large organizations conspiring against us," I can give you twenty.
You're being disingenuous. The tweet was talking about asserting the existence of fake articles, claiming that a paper was written in one year while summarizing a paper that explicitly says it was written in another, and severe hallucinations. Nowhere does she even imply that she's looking for superintelligence.
That would be horrible for workers. Let's not establish that sort of precedent; if you do the job, remote or not, you get paid equally. Even assuming a slight productivity bump, John doesn't deserve more money than Dave just because he schleps himself to the office.
This sort of anti-intellectualism is the perfect antidote for those who claim that improper grammar is nothing more than evidence of language "evolving."
But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.