> If you want perfectly deliberated technological development, you’re against new technology.

This is absurd and the exact opposite of what I am saying.

It's fine to work on new developments. It's not fine when people take their new developments and try to force them down everyone's throats.

To illustrate, look at Sam Altman going to congress and having the petulance to argue that they can not make a business if OpenAI had to pay for copyrighted material.

He is not arguing "we should work together with the copyright holders and give them ownership in the venture".

He is not saying "developing this is crucial and can benefit everyone, so we hope we can make up for the copyright infringement by putting all our work in the public domain."

He is just saying "I need this because without it I can not make money, and to make this I need money". It's self-serving circular logic.

> You’re describing research, not technology.

Which is exactly how VCs dress up their investments and justify how unethical their companies are.

> He is just saying "I need this because without it I can not make money, and to make this I need money". It's self-serving circular logic

Sure. That is bad. That doesn’t make GPTs bad nor the good they do irrelevant.

> Which is exactly how VCs dress up their investments and justify how unethical their companies are

Sure, arguments can be used well or badly. The point remains that technology has to have utility to be technology. Otherwise it’s research or art (or fraud), the first two of which we pursue for their own purpose.

> The point remains that technology has to have utility to be technology

I haven't argued otherwise. My argument is that utility alone is not enough a justification to keep working on specific technologies, much less to promote them as an universal solution to existing problems.