[housebear]

How are you able to make the inference that "most people reading this got real value from an LLM. And I'm sure the author did as well." How are you so sure of that?

Speaking for myself, I've never gotten any real value from an LLM and their disappearance would not affect me in the slightest.

It sounds more like you were upset about his assertion because YOU derive value from an LLM, and are projecting that as some sort of dishonesty on the author's part.

Also, it was his intention to throw "the kitchen sink at the technology" as a means of showing its lack of value. In the same way a vegan would do exactly as you mention to show all the arguments AGAINST eating meat. It is meant to strengthen the intended argument through overwhelming evidence.

[famouswaffles]

Chatgpt was the 6th (and climbing) most visited site in the world in January. Cursor is the fastest growing Saas of all time.

So yeah, most people get real value from LLMs. It's pretty plain to see, for anyone actually interested in seeing it.

[azizam]

As the article mentions, the number of users is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of how much positive value a tool brings to society (also factoring in the costs and negative impacts of the tool). This is a weak argument.

[famouswaffles]

How much value a user gets from a tool is the users prerogative to give.

The user above is talking specifically about how much value users are getting out of LLMs. The number of users who consistently return is in fact a very good argument for the plain real world value being generated by LLMs.

[azizam]

Incorrect, I'm afraid. The "plain real world value" does not necessarily have any correlation to the number of users, so your argument again fails to hold water.

Simply consider the users that use generative AI in order to perform some unimportant work (as I hope is the case, for generative AI cannot produce anything of novelty, by design). If such work held no value to begin with, then through simple deduction you can conclude that the generative AI contributed nothing of value.

The only outcome worthy of consideration was the time reclaimed by the user not performing such mundane tasks (so that they can move on to perform... more mundane work?), in which case one must question the larger scope of process at hand.

This is just one counterexample to your underlying premise for your argument - that you know nothing of how the users use such tools, or whether their use even brings anything of value to the real world.

The point being, the number of users is a number with no meaning. It is a number used to inflate the faux excitement surrounding AI and nothing more. "Falling for the hype", if you like.

Extrapolating your faulty logic, I could say a pornography website is of extreme value to humanity. After all, literal billions of people visit such websites very frequently. This must bring real world value, no? Or cigarettes? Or TikTok?

If your definition of value is derived from self-indulgence, e.g., how much time one can spend away from work with AI, or how much one can smoke because it feels nice in the moment, i.e., the hedonistic evaluation, then by all means, spoil yourself. After all, I don't stand to revoke those liberties anyway.

But understand, that this definition of value is not the same as "plain real world value" by necessity, and as such, the "number of users" is no guarantee.

[famouswaffles]

>Simply consider the users that use generative AI in order to perform some unimportant work

Says who ? I certainly don't use it for unimportant work.

>(as I hope is the case, for generative AI cannot produce anything of novelty, by design)

Another Unfounded Assertion

>then through simple deduction you can conclude that the generative AI contributed nothing of value.

Nonsensical. 'Unimportant work' that people keep doing is work that needs to be done. Getting it done is providing value.

>I could say a pornography website is of extreme value to humanity.

Pornography provides a lot of value yes.

[azizam]

You have once again conflated individualistic values with real world values, and shown bias to personal anecdotes. I am afraid you are simply incapable of understanding so there is no point to discussing this further.