I am very happy for you that you're living in a country where being remembered of the fact that 17% of the world's population cannot openly speak, write, or read of the killing of somewhere between 200 and 2000 of their fellow men and women a mere 37 years feels "trite", and the topic of authoritarian state censorship on AI (and tech in general) feels "excessively tangential". What exactly is within the perimeter of your interest with regards to LLMs, if not the truthfulness of its responses?
The formulaic and predictable style of that commentary only betrays a lack of effort and conveys no original insight. The disinterest, therefore, is unsurprising. Instead it invites contempt and has accusations of hypocrisy, insincerity and pretentiousness.
The subject of censorship in LLMs and the wider technology world in general has little bearing on this model specifically, that is, a model with a high token speed, which is what is of interest to me here and why I, and I presume many others, chose to read that particular article and this comment thread. It is unnecessary that such a digression should be attaching itself to all manner of threads with only the most remote connection to that subject.
You prefer "fast car faster than other fast cars" over "fast car faster than other fast cars might also be slightly more environmentally friendly than this manufacturer's most recent (and much slower) cars". Okay. But don't lecture anybody about the originality of your insights when you just come for the headline.
Your response is scarcely comprehensible. A supposed “preference” for something I had yet to discover? Indeed. Your second charge conflates two categories, so that the conclusion does not follow from the proposition.
It is clear that you have no argument and have devolved into constructing straw men and ad hominem.
