> The argument is that several technologies don't work 'out of the box' and you have to tweak their settings for each problem that you face, and that this means it's a scam.
That's not what the argument is. The operative keyword in the argument is the word "sell", not the quantifiers themselves. If you're not "selling" it under that premise and you're open about the nuance, then it's not a scam.
Intentional or not, your representation of the argument is a scarecrow.
You might argue that this is semantics, but it's not. It's literally the point that is driving real execs desire to replace actual humans with GPT, right now.
That's not what the argument is. The operative keyword in the argument is the word "sell", not the quantifiers themselves. If you're not "selling" it under that premise and you're open about the nuance, then it's not a scam.
Intentional or not, your representation of the argument is a scarecrow.
You might argue that this is semantics, but it's not. It's literally the point that is driving real execs desire to replace actual humans with GPT, right now.