> The title of the article is “The Future of Everything is Lies, I Guess” and the first part is literally complaining about LLMs being bullshit machines, while the author proceeds to tell confabulations (or lies) of his own. Is there not a bit of irony in that?

Maybe some, but not that much given the disclaimers I cited above. There's value in a qualitative confidence level for a statement, and I'd argue that this is something that LLMs do not seem to produce in practice without someone explicitly asking for it. The human author's ability to anticipate potential mistakes in their logic and communicate those ahead of time is not equivalent to the type of fabrications that LLMs routinely make.

> If you’re a non-expert in a field, I don’t think it’s a good sign if you’re writing a 10 part article about that field’s impact on society and getting basic facts wrong. How can I trust that the conclusions will be any more credible?

I don't know why an expert in LLM implementation would be inherently more qualified to analyze the second-order effects of their product than anyone else. There's precedent for people who are "too close" to something having biases that make them less effective at recognizing how tools will get used by non-experts, and society as a whole is largely composed of people who are not experts in LLM implementations. If you wanted to understand what the net effect of everyone having access to LLMs, having an understanding of people is probably more important than knowing exactly what an LLM does under the hood.

Might the conclusions be correct even if some of the facts are not? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And, "approximately correct" is still sometimes valuable.