If they were true, nobody would be using them.
Millions upon millions of people are using them every day?
The fact people do something doesn’t say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity.
Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower.
Widespread use alone isn’t conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you’ve correctly identified what they’ve all somehow missed.
Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn’t establish that LLMs don’t improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse.
At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse.
I agree. They’re far far more often misused than used effectively, however.
thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you’ve correctly identified what they’ve all somehow missed.
Yes, this is obvious for anyone that has eyes and isn’t a sycophant.
Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you’re just asserting that they’re misused far more often than not.
But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly.
My observations have just as much merit as your speculation that somehow companies by default make good decisions. I don’t know why you have it stuck in your head that is a valid logical foundation, but you are incorrect.
In any case, you clearly don’t have anything else to offer, so I think we’re done here. Have a nice day!
That is also just an assertion.
The fact people do something doesn’t say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity.
Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower.
Widespread use alone isn’t conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you’ve correctly identified what they’ve all somehow missed.
Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn’t establish that LLMs don’t improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse.
I agree. They’re far far more often misused than used effectively, however.
Yes, this is obvious for anyone that has eyes and isn’t a sycophant.
Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you’re just asserting that they’re misused far more often than not.
But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly.
I never said they couldn’t. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you
My observations have just as much merit as your speculation that somehow companies by default make good decisions. I don’t know why you have it stuck in your head that is a valid logical foundation, but you are incorrect.
In any case, you clearly don’t have anything else to offer, so I think we’re done here. Have a nice day!