I know you’re being disparaging by using language like “bake into their identity” but everyone is “something” about “something”.
I’m “indifferent” about “roller coasters” and “passionate” about “board games”.
To answer the question (but I’m not OP), I’m skeptical about LLMs. “These words are often near each other” vastly exceeds my expectation at being fairly convincing that the machine “knows” something, but it’s dangerously confident when it’s hilariously incorrect.
Whatever we call the next technological leap where there’s actual knowledge (not just “word statistics” I’ll be less skeptical about.
Your framing is extrapolative, mendacious and is adding what could charitably be called your interpersonal problems to a statement which is perfectly neutral, intended as an admission against general inclination to lend credibility to the observation that follows.
Someone uncharitable would say things about your cognitive abilities and character that are likely true but not useful.
Very probably not somebody who blindly picked a position, easily somebody who is quite wary of the downsides of the current state of the technology, as expressed already explicitly in the post:
> It’s downsides, such as hallucinations and lack of reasoning
