VAPR
VAPORBRANDS INTL INC
stockOTC

Yesterday, I was dealing with replies from hundreds of people while on my cell, not my PC, so I didn't take the time to go back and reread the parent comments as I usually would. That said, I've now reread this entire comment chain and I think I've figured out the core of our misunderstanding. For the record, I also removed the hostility from my last reply because you didn't deserve it. You're defending other technologies within the AI umbrella from the very specific, foundational critique I'm leveling against LLMs, and honestly, you're right to do that. Let me be crystal clear: Computer Vision, on its own, isn't the cancer. Robotics, on its own, isn't the cancer. These are mature fields with their own challenges, but they aren't what my essay is about. The "cancer" in my metaphor is specifically the unfixable, non-deterministic nature of Large Language Models; their inherent inability to distinguish truth from statistically probable nonsense. LLMs are the "problem child" of the entire AI category. The issue, and the reason my essay uses a broad umbrella, is that in the real world these technologies are no longer separate. They are being cobbled together. The moment you use an LLM as the "brain" to interpret what a brilliant CV system "sees," you have infected that entire, stable system with the LLM's core flaw. The hallucination problem metastasizes from the reasoning engine to the entire product. This is what we saw with Amazon Go; a system combining CV, sensor fusion, and Generative AI that ultimately couldn't handle the chaos of reality. My essay lumps these together under "AI" for two reasons. First, it was written for a broad audience that doesn't need to know the difference between an LLM and Amazons VAPR and VASS; that's for nerds like us. But more importantly, my ultimate target isn't any single piece of tech. It's the human leadership. My critique is aimed squarely at the owners and chief evangelists who are pushing their teams to overpromise on these cobbled-together systems, hide their deep flaws, and deploy them recklessly. And that’s where the normal issues of tech debt and deployment challenges become exponential. The delusional thinking of the leadership, coupled with the promises of world-changing money and power, creates a top-down pressure to ignore these fundamental risks. That is the culture that is truly dangerous. So I hope this clarifies things. You're right to defend the integrity of specific disciplines. My critique is focused on the unique danger of LLMs and, most of all, on the reckless, top-down culture that is forcing them into every facet of our lives.