This seems to be the fundamental guiding ideology of LLM boosterism; the output doesn't actually _really_ matter, as long as there's lots of it. It's a truly baffling attitude.
I wish, but no, it's not baffling. We live in a post-truth society, and this is the sort of fundamental nihilism that naturally results.
What I mean is:
Some people recognize that there are circumstances where the social aspects of agreement seem to be the dominant concern, e.g. when the goal is to rally votes. The cynical view of "good beliefs" in that scenario is group cohesion, rather than correspondence with objective reality.
But most everyone would agree that there are situations where correlation with objective reality is the main concern. E.g., when someone is designing and building the bridge they cross every day.
Oversimplified to an awful degree. There is a lot of variation between people, cultures, even countries.
If the AI tool generates a 30 line function which doesn’t work. And you spend time testing and modifying the 3 lines of broken logic. The vast majority of the code was AI generated even if it didn’t save you any time.
That's crazy, should really be the opposite. If someone releases weights that promises "X% less lines generated compared to Y", I'd jump on that in an instant, more LLMs are way too verbose by default. Some are really hard to even use prompts to get them to be more concise (looking at you, various Google models)
[1] https://github.com/aw31/openai-imo-2025-proofs
[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.15855 Appendix A
Fundamentals don't matter anymore, just say whatever you need to say to secure the next round of funding.
It's the same as the ideology of FOMO Capitalism:
= The billionaire arseholes are saying it, it must be true
= Stock valuations are in the trillions, there must be enormous value
= The stock market is doing so well, your concerns about fundamental social-democratic principles are unpatriotic
= You need to climb aboard or you will lose even worse than you lost in the crypto-currency hornswoggle