You did not address the core issue, which is that you engage with many comment threads negatively and on an individual basis, providing a cyclical viewpoint. This is creating engagement for each “toxic” thread individually instead of confidently asserting a PoV and letting it rest. I understand that from your perspective that it’s fair to lower yourself to their perceived level, but it’s still bloating the toxic side of the discourse instead of helping it move on.
Drop a wall of well reasoned text and let it stand on its own. Or provide the type of comment that you want to see at the top level and be the change you want.
Case in point, I’ve said what I wanted to say, have found myself restating it once, and this comment is my peace out. A good day to you!
It’s honestly a bit of both. Creativity can be expressed in the intermediate steps in order to provide a subjectively superior approach (durably optimal until someone identifies a better approach), but fundamentally the design goal is “achieve X with minimal risk and waste”. That’s the part where I agree with you: gatekeeping an outcome is dumb. That said, the expressions of those intermediate steps genuinely land in the territory of creativity. That’s how we end up with new algorithms. Creativity is how we arrive at the optimal algorithms.
Even so, gatekeeping those intermediate techniques is bad for the same reasons as gatekeeping the end state. If they can be independently arrived at (like flourishes that personalize a recipe or alter it for particular food pairings), the end result is still stifling innovation and closing access to the tools everyone has access to.
Edit: Ultimately I think this means everyone should have access, unequivocally. The problem is that LLMs are financially gatekept and implemented at environmentally predatory scales, with unregulated supply chain bottlenecks that choke out the more environmentally friendly and consumer accessible tech that was in the pipeline.