> Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. I think the context here is the question of what "kinds" of writing GPT-3 and similar technologies can and can't do

> Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. I think the context here is the question of what "kinds" of writing GPT-3 and similar technologies can and can't do as well as humans, so when I talk about "usefulness" I'm really talking about whether GPT-3 can do its thing of generating passable text in response to widely varied prompts. If it can't do that in some domain, then it's not going to replace writers working in that domain. That doesn't mean the output won't be interesting, but it will be far less relevant in the ways that make GPT-3 notable in the first place.