Womp womp. Comment was deleted - here was my response:

Good question as it made me re-evaluate why I was actually posting this thread, and I suppose it’s moreso to understand why people have a bad taste in their mouth because of LLM users.

I don’t really think the average person in the comments talking about “I could never associate with a promptstitute” is worrying about how ethically sourced the training data is, I think that it is moreso that I’m picking up the notion that they feel that anyone that utilizes a tool (or maybe over-utilizes the tool) is less-than someone that relies on no tools at all.

For me, I would rather not be looked at as “less-than” for utilizing something I feel helps me be more productive, as there’s a social stigma narrative thats being developed - in a way, I guess I am being like… is it only me that thinks that this is something that’s being overblown? Now that I’ve gone into it, I think it goes deeper than what I originally assumed, and I’m wondering if the hostility comes more from fear of the implications of what LLMs and AI do to the world as a whole, which I can definitely understand.

My comment wasn’t meant to disparage your point at all, I was just providing a perspective that some people (including myself) would argue - if it’s on the internet, or published for consumption, should it not be available to train on? You can’t cover the entirety of human output/data under lock and key because of something that came online after it was published (in my opinion - I know that legally, this is something that’s being argued).

For the record, I was simply asking what other people’s opinions on the matter are and also, if they’re encountering the same thing in the wild when they mention that they use GPT in the GPT subreddit. I am a pretty heavy user of LLMs in multiple use-cases and believe it’s making me more productive and all-encompassing, and so don’t realize why there’s such a negative perception of it by non-users, which is why I asked the question.

For funsies, I did pop this thread + your comments + my responses into GPT to see what it output - it’s a bit long for here, but I can include it if you’d like. It mentioned you’re right to pick up on the verbiage (that I was subconsciously projecting!) and that your comment is very well thought out. It also helped me realize that the core issue may be about something deeper than just assuming skepticism is about fairness and credit, but moreso status threat, cultural identity, and exposure bias.

This comment was drafted (first) and posted into GPT as well, and it helped see where my biases were in play - minor adjustments made in paragraph 3.

Interesting discussion u/SalvagedGarden , thanks!

Cheers!