Still have no idea what you're getting at, your world model is too different to mine for a one sentence retort to bridge the gap.
The economy is why we go to school, where our stuff is made, and where we get the money with which to buy it rent that stuff — It very much is the material part of our interactions.
As that's also one sentence, I'm expecting you to be as confused as I still am.
I'm not sure why you think that, given the paper being linked to was co-published by people from four universities and apparently no corporations?
LLMs are much broader than I think you think they are; even the most famous one, ChatGPT, is mostly a research thing that surprised its creators by being fun for the public — and one of its ancestors, GPT-2, was already being treated as "potentially dangerous just in case" for basically the same reasons they're still giving for 3.5 and 4 even before OpenAI changed their corporate structure to allow for-profit investment.
> I'm not sure why you think that, given the paper being linked to was co-published by people from four universities and apparently no corporations?
That doesn't imply their work doesn't also serve capital and private equity, which it trivially does. Otherwise their definition of terms would be meaningful to the median human.
The economy is why we go to school, where our stuff is made, and where we get the money with which to buy it rent that stuff — It very much is the material part of our interactions.
As that's also one sentence, I'm expecting you to be as confused as I still am.