3 ms·

The author betrays himself early with this line: > a cynical bubble inflated by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman built to sell into an economy run by people that have no

by bko 2y ago

The author betrays himself early with this line: > a cynical bubble inflated by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman built to sell into an economy run by people that have no concept of labor other than their desperation to exploit or replace it. He brings up the concept of labor and applies a moral judgement about "replacing" and "exploiting" labor. And then he throws the kitchen sink at the technology. People use it sure, but it's because journalists write about it. How it's expensive to train. Throw a bunch of explicits and call it a hot take. It's the equivalent of a vegan trying to convince you that eating meat is morally wrong, and will give you cancer, and make you fat, and give you ED, and ... This doesn't work primarily due to the fact that most people reading this got real value from an LLM. And I'm sure the author did as well. Claiming otherwise is dishonest. So what is his problem?

housebear 2y ago
How are you able to make the inference that "most people reading this got real value from an LLM. And I'm sure the author did as well." How are you so sure of that? Speaking for myself, I've never gotten any real value from an LLM and their disappearance would not affect me in the slightest. It sounds more like you were upset about his assertion because YOU derive value from an LLM, and are projecting that as some sort of dishonesty on the author's part. Also, it was his intention to throw "the kitchen sink at the technology" as a means of showing its lack of value. In the same way a vegan would do exactly as you mention to show all the arguments AGAINST eating meat. It is meant to strengthen the intended argument through overwhelming evidence.
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  Chatgpt was the 6th (and climbing) most visited site in the world in January. Cursor is the fastest growing Saas of all time. So yeah, most people get real value from LLMs. It's pretty plain to see, for anyone actually interested in seeing it.
  - azizam 2y ago
    As the article mentions, the number of users is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of how much positive value a tool brings to society (also factoring in the costs and negative impacts of the tool). This is a weak argument.
    - famouswaffles 2y ago
      How much value a user gets from a tool is the users prerogative to give. The user above is talking specifically about how much value users are getting out of LLMs. The number of users who consistently return is in fact a very good argument for the plain real world value being generated by LLMs.
      - azizam 2y ago
        Incorrect, I'm afraid. The "plain real world value" does not necessarily have any correlation to the number of users, so your argument again fails to hold water. Simply consider the users that use generative AI in order to perform some unimportant work (as I hope is the case, for generative AI cannot produce anything of novelty, by design). If such work held no value to begin with, then through simple deduction you can conclude that the generative AI contributed nothing of value. The only outcome worthy of consideration was the time reclaimed by the user not performing such mundane tasks (so that they can move on to perform... more mundane work?), in which case one must question the larger scope of process at hand. This is just one counterexample to your underlying premise for your argument - that you know nothing of how the users use such tools, or whether their use even brings anything of value to the real world. The point being, the number of users is a number with no meaning. It is a number used to inflate the faux excitement surrounding AI and nothing more. "Falling for the hype", if you like. Extrapolating your faulty logic, I could say a pornography website is of extreme value to humanity. After all, literal billions of people visit such websites very frequently. This must bring real world value, no? Or cigarettes? Or TikTok? If your definition of value is derived from self-indulgence, e.g., how much time one can spend away from work with AI, or how much one can smoke because it feels nice in the moment, i.e., the hedonistic evaluation, then by all means, spoil yourself. After all, I don't stand to revoke those liberties anyway. But understand, that this definition of value is not the same as "plain real world value" by necessity, and as such, the "number of users" is no guarantee.
gamblor956 2y ago
Very few people get real value from an LLM. They're useful for minor grammatical checks, and idiot-level summaries. Maybe for entry-level coding. Outside of that, they're basically just gimmicks. You can't trust the output at all; literally everything an LLM outputs must be verified before it can be used for anything important, so you end up doing all of the work you thought you would have avoided by using an LLM.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Honestly can not understand this take. I put literally everything I write for work into an LLM. 80% of the time it has good suggestions to improve it. It is by far the best grammar checker I have found. Obviously dont ask for facts but it is incredible with language. Claude is far more useful to me than google search ever was.
- yunwal 2y ago
  > literally everything an LLM outputs must be verified Until you prove P=NP I’ll take that as a win
steego 2y ago
> So what is his problem? My guess: He's just posting a hot-take to farm for engagement. I'm not saying he's wrong about everything. I'm just pointing out that he has a small incentive to be engaging.

by bko 2y ago

housebear 2y ago

How are you able to make the inference that "most people reading this got real value from an LLM. And I'm sure the author did as well." How are you so sure of that? Speaking for myself, I've never gotten any real value from an LLM and their disappearance would not affect me in the slightest. It sounds more like you were upset about his assertion because YOU derive value from an LLM, and are projecting that as some sort of dishonesty on the author's part. Also, it was his intention to throw "the kitchen sink at the technology" as a means of showing its lack of value. In the same way a vegan would do exactly as you mention to show all the arguments AGAINST eating meat. It is meant to strengthen the intended argument through overwhelming evidence.

famouswaffles 2y ago
Chatgpt was the 6th (and climbing) most visited site in the world in January. Cursor is the fastest growing Saas of all time. So yeah, most people get real value from LLMs. It's pretty plain to see, for anyone actually interested in seeing it.
- azizam 2y ago
  As the article mentions, the number of users is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of how much positive value a tool brings to society (also factoring in the costs and negative impacts of the tool). This is a weak argument.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    How much value a user gets from a tool is the users prerogative to give. The user above is talking specifically about how much value users are getting out of LLMs. The number of users who consistently return is in fact a very good argument for the plain real world value being generated by LLMs.
    - azizam 2y ago
      Incorrect, I'm afraid. The "plain real world value" does not necessarily have any correlation to the number of users, so your argument again fails to hold water. Simply consider the users that use generative AI in order to perform some unimportant work (as I hope is the case, for generative AI cannot produce anything of novelty, by design). If such work held no value to begin with, then through simple deduction you can conclude that the generative AI contributed nothing of value. The only outcome worthy of consideration was the time reclaimed by the user not performing such mundane tasks (so that they can move on to perform... more mundane work?), in which case one must question the larger scope of process at hand. This is just one counterexample to your underlying premise for your argument - that you know nothing of how the users use such tools, or whether their use even brings anything of value to the real world. The point being, the number of users is a number with no meaning. It is a number used to inflate the faux excitement surrounding AI and nothing more. "Falling for the hype", if you like. Extrapolating your faulty logic, I could say a pornography website is of extreme value to humanity. After all, literal billions of people visit such websites very frequently. This must bring real world value, no? Or cigarettes? Or TikTok? If your definition of value is derived from self-indulgence, e.g., how much time one can spend away from work with AI, or how much one can smoke because it feels nice in the moment, i.e., the hedonistic evaluation, then by all means, spoil yourself. After all, I don't stand to revoke those liberties anyway. But understand, that this definition of value is not the same as "plain real world value" by necessity, and as such, the "number of users" is no guarantee.

gamblor956 2y ago

Very few people get real value from an LLM. They're useful for minor grammatical checks, and idiot-level summaries. Maybe for entry-level coding. Outside of that, they're basically just gimmicks. You can't trust the output at all; literally everything an LLM outputs must be verified before it can be used for anything important, so you end up doing all of the work you thought you would have avoided by using an LLM.

HDThoreaun 2y ago
Honestly can not understand this take. I put literally everything I write for work into an LLM. 80% of the time it has good suggestions to improve it. It is by far the best grammar checker I have found. Obviously dont ask for facts but it is incredible with language. Claude is far more useful to me than google search ever was.
yunwal 2y ago
> literally everything an LLM outputs must be verified Until you prove P=NP I’ll take that as a win

steego 2y ago

> So what is his problem? My guess: He's just posting a hot-take to farm for engagement. I'm not saying he's wrong about everything. I'm just pointing out that he has a small incentive to be engaging.