@matt this. Even if it does provide benefit we cannot simply turn away from the consequences of getting what we have. Humans have been doing things like this for a really long time, and a lot of it is how we ended up in less than desirable situations. If accessibility is a hurtle, at what point is it OK to ignore in favor of benefitting the many that don't need it? No wheelchair ramps, no walkable cities, all of those are things that undoubtedly benefit somebody, people who drive cars, etc. but hurt people who can't. Just as an example. So just because someone can derive positives out of it does not mean that overall it is inherently a good thing. Plus we shouldn't forget that we've been using several kinds of AI to classify images for example, and I don't think there's a particularly good reason why an LLM should be better at this than building on less exploitative means of achieving the same thing. I don't consider myself special enough to demand everybody else just suck it up. Instead we should focus our energy on creating something that's less exploitative and works for the good of everyone, not just me.

@matt Let me ask, would people, and I mean real people do what they can to let's say, make things accessible out of the goodness of their hearts? no. It's been proven that humans, as a general rule, simply do not care about such things. Having an AI do it makes life much better for people than legislation would.