[zamadatix]

I think that's aligns with what GP is saying: if one is going to say people are using it, even if for things you don't like, then choosing to call it vapourware in the same paragraph is a confusing use of the term.

In a charitable reading I think the author was meaning something along the lines of "fails to be as useful as made to sound on things I think are worth valuing but very useful for things I think are slop" but chose a different meaning term by mistake.

[mariusor]

LLMs are purported by their creators to have a different use (advancing of human knowledge, genuine artificial intelligence, etc) than drowning discussions online. The fact that people can find some uses for bad technology does not make it less of a failure or, those goals less hot air.

[zamadatix]

Again, the issue is the term "vapourware" does not refer to software which one considers bad, misguided from its original goals, or a failure.

[mariusor]

It fits for software that has not reached its creators stated goals. LLMs are not AI and have not improved lives for any human, outside of making some people rich.

[zamadatix]

I'd disagree the definition fits that situation as vapourware is for software which is still unobtainable, not software which is available but the reviews and feature coverage suck vs the advertisement hype. Are we able to talk about that definition further before we dive into talking about your views on LLMs?

[srveale]

As someone who uses LLMs every day for general questions/brainstorming, more efficient coding, and building a product used by doctors to improve their documentation (saving them hours per week and freeing them to interact with their patients more personally), I would like more of this hot air please. Would you begrudge disabled people their new assistants? Language learners their translators? I could go on.

LLMs have some very important downsides, and I fully agree that they are dangerous, but we should dispel the notion that they don't have positive use cases. That leaves the benefits on the table, while the bad actors will continue with their destruction anyways.

Anyway, my original point was indeed just about the semantics of the word "vapourware", which if I'm interpreting the author correctly, would be better replaced with "malware" (not that I agree with such a stance).