| HN Mirror

I mean, the usual argument about why blockchains aren't useful implies they have to be useful for every person in all situations and that tradeoffs are unacceptable, so if there is some marginal extra cost or complexity then no matter how many benefits I might claim to be getting from using blockchain technology every single day as a replacement for random banking institutions I'd previously been having to deal with for decades that I'm somehow just wrong and there are no actual use cases...

..and that's the same deal for GPT as far as I can tell: you might think you are getting value out of it, but people such as maybe-literally-me are going to whine that the error rate is high and that people are not paying enough attention to how they are using it and that at the end of the day it is probably worse for you than learning how to do things yourself and that the whole thing is overrated because many of the things people try to use it for can be done by a person and maybe we should regulate it or even ban it because all of this misuse and misunderstanding of it are dangerous to the status quo and might be the downfall of western civilization as we know it.

To be clear: I'm using it (ChatGPT) occasionally for some stuff, but it hasn't replaced Google for me anymore than crypto has fully replaced banks... and yet the fact that I am using either technology as often as I am on a daily basis would probably have been surprising to someone 10-15 years ago. And yet, in practice, most of the stuff people are excited about in both fields is, in fact, a tech demo more than a truly useful product concept, and one that only is exciting momentarily until you get bored.