No I agree with your initial criticisms of the little essay.

Copying the most relevant bit from another comment I left here:

Pushing people to rely on unreliable tools is a bad idea. Why should “a factory worker draft a union newsletter” with an LLM when the union newsletter will inherently be worse because it was made by an LLM that produces flat-toned bullshit? You lose the human and personal voice, the fire and zeal that are needed for organizing, by passing it through an LLM. Or “rent strike scenario simulations” done by an LLM are completely unreliable and worthless. " enable a nurse to visualize a protest poster" using an LLM to emphasize the importance of the skilled human labor that nurses provide? An absurd and self-undermining tactic.

Basically to my eyes LLMs are a tool that can be utilized as a part of an overarching creative process composed of subprocesses but are not themselves creative. The purpose of creativity is to be creative! Thats not to say that nothing that touches an LLM is creative, but rather that the LLM use is an outsourcing of parts of the creative processes.

Here’s a couple examples of “creative use of an LLM” that I thought were fine and were truly creative:

1. Having some generative model generate video scenes following a theme that someone wanted and stitching them together into a music video that had a coherent theme for a song that he wrote. That took effort and the LLM couldn’t have made the whole music video.

2. Using one of those voice models trained on celebrities’ voices to make Taylor Swift sing “Get Low” by Lil John. Because it’s a funny idea someone wanted to see happen and they used the tools to make it happen. Now there’s major ethical problems with literally putting words into someone else’s mouth but that’s a different issue from whether it is a creative endeavor or not.