Part of the reason the debate over usefulness is so exhausting is because there is an element of randomness, anecdote, and special pleading built into the use o

Part of the reason the debate over usefulness is so exhausting is because there is an element of randomness, anecdote, and special pleading built into the use of the tool. One person has a good experience in their context, one person has a bad experience in their context. One person sees a bad result and throws up their hands and says it sucks, another tweaks their prompt until they get a good result and says it works. In addition there's an element of personality: One person might think it's more meaningful to compose a party invitation to friends personally, another asks ChatGPT to write it to make sure they don't miss anything. As someone who is on the skeptic side, I of course don't appreciate the "holding it wrong" discourse, which I think is rude and dismissive of people and their right to choose how they do things. But at the end of the day it's just a counterweight to the corresponding discourse on the skeptic side which is essentially "gross, you used AI". What's worse though is that institutions are forcing us to use this type of tool without consent, either through mandates or through integrations without opt-outs. To me it doesn't meet the bar for a revolutionary technology if it has to be propagated forcibly or with social scolding.