emp17344

16 ms·

1. 331.▲
   by emp17344 1y ago

   I don’t know what you mean, because arbitrary tools don’t integrate with LLMs in the first place. Are you referring to MCP?
2. 332.▲
   by emp17344 1y ago

   We still have next to no real information on how the models achieved the gold medal. It’s a little early to be confirming anything, especially when the main source is a Twitter thread initiated by a company known for “exaggerating” the trut
3. 333.▲
   by emp17344 1y ago

   Yes, the models have gotten better at using tools because tech companies have poured an insane amount of money into improving tools and integrating them with LLMs. Is this because the models have actually improved, or because the tools and
4. 334.▲
   by emp17344 1y ago

   But they aren’t profitable, and there’s no clear path for them to become profitable. The people you’re railing against aren’t exactly wrong to be skeptical.
5. 335.▲
   by emp17344 1y ago

   This kind of comment isn’t helpful. Of course, people around here also want AI to succeed for various reasons. Everyone has an agenda. Judge based on the merit of the argument.
6. 336.▲
   by emp17344 1y ago

   Aren’t they still deep in the red? What’s the justification for claiming they’ll become profitable?
7. 337.▲
   by emp17344 1y ago

   You’re making an assumption that you can effectively judge who contributes value to the business and who does not.
8. 338.▲
   by emp17344 1y ago

   Weirdly misanthropic. Jobs exist for a reason - people who could be replaced by a python script already have been.
9. 339.▲
   by emp17344 1y ago

   Only if you believe popularity is the same as usefulness.
10. 340.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    > 100M growth in two months suggests literally every single human being on Earth would benefit from using this all the time, and it’s just a matter of enabling them to. This doesn’t make any sense. Popular is not the same as useful. You’
11. 341.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    What goalposts do you think were moved? Please elaborate.
12. 342.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    It’s not clear that those “emergent properties” even exist.
13. 343.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    Ok, but you didn’t define what “proper” use of a computer means to you, which leaves the entire thing open to interpretation. I would say practically everyone is capable of using a computer to complete an enormous range of tasks. Is this no
14. 344.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    Is this a joke, or do you actually believe most people are incapable of using a computer?
15. 345.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    Moot point? As far as I know, it’s still intensely debated, and there are some excellent papers out there providing evidence that LLMs truly are just statistical prediction machines. It’s far from an unreasonable position.
16. 346.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    Why is a less reliable service more valuable?
17. 347.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    Astroturfing on social media, most likely. The AI hype almost certainly isn’t entirely organic.
18. 348.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    But even if you remove R&D costs, they’re still billions of dollars short of profitability. That’s not a small hurdle to overcome. And OpenAI has to continue to develop new models to remain relevant.
19. 349.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    In fact, when this was studied, it was found that using AI actually makes developers less productive: https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...
20. 350.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    There are several papers studying this, but the situation is far more nuanced than you’re implying. Here’s one paper stating that these capabilities are an illusion: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3610978.
21. 351.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    Do you have evidence to support any of this? This is the first time I’ve heard that LLMs exhibit understanding of theory of mind. I think it’s more likely that the user I replied to is projecting their own biases and beliefs onto the LLM.
22. 352.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    You haven’t provided more information, you’ve just restated your original claim. Can you provide a specific example of AI “blowing your mind”?
23. 353.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    I don’t understand what you’re saying. You know the AI is incapable of reading your mind, right? Can you provide more information?
24. 354.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    Agreed… I feel increasingly alienated because I don’t understand how AI is providing enough value to justify the truly insane level of investment.
25. 355.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    They didn’t say there’s literally zero effect, they said that there’s negligible disruption to job market from the introduction of AI.
26. 356.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    Good to know, but for me, the study is more convincing than your anecdote.
27. 357.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    No, 1 is 1 more than 0. There’s a certain sense in which you could say that 1 is infinitely greater than 0, but only in an abstract, unquantifiable way. In this case, it doesn’t make sense to say you’re “infinitely more productive” because
28. 358.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    I think you’re overly sensitive to criticism of LLMs.
29. 359.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    > I'm infinity times more productive, as I just wouldn't even start projects without the LLM to sidestep my ADHD. 1 is not infinitely greater than 0.
30. 360.▲
    by emp17344 1y ago

    [flagged]