'ben_w addressed other points, but it would be amiss not to comment on this too: > The marketing is telling everyone that they're amazing PhD level geniuses.

'ben_w addressed other points, but it would be amiss not to comment on this too: > The marketing is telling everyone that they're amazing PhD level geniuses. No it is not. LLM vendors are, and have always been, open about the limits of the models, and I'm yet to see a major provider claiming their models are geniuses, PhD-level or otherwise. Nothing of the sort is happening - on the contrary, the vendors are avoiding making such claims or positioning their offerings this way. No, this perspective doesn't come from LLM marketing. It comes from people who ignore both the official information from the vendors and the experience of LLM users, who are oblivious to what's common knowledge and instead let their imagination run wild, perhaps fueled by bullshit they heard from other clueless people, or more likely, from third parties on the Internet that say all kinds of outlandish things to get more eyes looking at the ads they run. > Companies and individuals are buying LLMs expecting them to be real developers, and real writers, and real risk analysts... but they'll get average dumb-as-they-come internet commenter. Curiously, this is wrong in two opposite directions at once. Yes, many companies and individuals have overinflated expectations, but that's frankly because they're idiots. There's no first-party fraud going on here; if you get fooled by hype from some random LinkedIn "thought leaders", that's on you; sue them for making a fool of you, and don't make yourself a bigger one by blaming LLM vendors for your own poor information diet. At the same time, LLMs actually are at the level of real developers, real writers and real risk analysts; downplaying capabilities of current LLMs doesn't make you less wrong than overestimating them.