[terminalcommand]

But LLMs always advertise themselves as a "co-pilot" solution anyway. Everywhere you use LLMs they put a disclaimer that LLMs are prone to errors and you need to check the responses if you are using it foe something serious.

I agree that it would be better if the LLMs showed you stats on utilization and tokens and also an estimated error rate based on these.

[intended]

Survivorship bias - those are the people who get in front of a user base.

There are many more who start out with “this is going to replace X”, where X is analysts, doctors, agents, quality teams, teachers, HR teams etc.

[terminalcommand]

I don't think LLMs are going to replace anyone. We will get much more productive though.

Just like the invention of computers reduced the need for human computers who calculated numbers by hand or mechanical calculators or automatic switching lines reduced the need for telephone operators or computers&printers reduced the need for copywriting secretaries, our professions will progress.

We will be able to do more with less cost, so we will produce more.

[intended]

Hey, please note that this isn't directed you as an individual. This is whats going on in corporate land.

Your argument is essentially that the market will adapt, and to this I have made no comment, or concerned myself to feel joy or fear. I am unsure what this point is addressing.

Yes we will have greater productivity - absolutely a good thing. The issue is how that surplus will be captured. Automation and oursourcing made the world as a whole better off, however the loss of factory foreman roles was different from the loss of horse and buggy roles.