I'm not soured on tech. I'm soured on the tech industry. I think there's quite a difference between these two things.
Using OpenAI as an example. ChatGPT is wonderful for the things it's made for. It's a tool, and a great one but that's all it is.
But OpenAI itself is a terrible company and Sam Altman is a power hungry conman that borders on snakeoil salesman.
And I'm soured on people like the CEO of my company who wants to shove a GPT chatbot into our application to do things that it's not at all good at or made for because they see dollar signs.
It worked as well as any other eighteen dollar a month lawyer back when I tried it in 2017/2018.
It was actually free back then I used it the one time and felt grateful enough for the help that I signed up for one cycle and then cancelled (since I didn't have a continued need for it).
I actually used the service in question during that time frame and did not feel deceived by their advertising. In fact, I felt good enough about the experience that I threw them a few bucks after the fact to compensate them for some of the value that they gave me.
You read an article about it and 7 years later and are convinced they are crooks.
> You read an article about it and 7 years later and are convinced they are crooks.
Actually, you read an article and assumed that your anecdotal experience from 7 years ago is more reflective of how a business operates than a current year investigation into that company by a federal agency.
Nobody is arguing that they deceived you personally 7 years ago.
This. Try being broke and able to get some advice and consultation with trepidation. I think its fine as long as more clearly labeled not legal advice or counsel but experiment tool.
In this particular case, I'm not sour because of OpenAI. I am sour because of deceptive and gross business practices highlighted in the article.