[-__---____-ZXyw]

I feel like we're talking past each other. In the interest of understanding, this is what I feel like I'm reading from you:

1. In a couple of contexts, as a non-expert, I'm getting excellent use out of these LLM tools, because I'm imaginative and creative in my use of them.

2. I get such great use out of them, as a non-expert, in these areas, that any expert claiming they are gimmicks, is simply wrong. They just need to get more imaginative and creative, like me.

Am I misunderstanding you here? Is this really what you're saying?

The holes in the thinking seem obvious, if I may be blunt. I would suggest you ask an LLM to help you analyse it, but I think they're quite bad at that, as they are programmed to reflect your biases back at you in a positive way. The largest epistemic issue they have is probably that - it is only possible to overcome this tendency to placate the user if the user has great knowledge of their biases, an issue even the best experts face!

[keiferski]

I said that people making blanket statements about LLMs being gimmicks need to be more creative. Then I listed a couple examples of how I find them useful, with the key point being that I don’t expect perfection.

This isn’t that complicated. Someone wrote an article saying X is a gimmick and made a weak argument. I said no, in my experience that isn’t the case, and here are a few examples.

Your patronizing tone is pretty irritating and distracts from whatever point you’re trying to make. But I’m not sure you’re actually engaging in good faith here, so I think that’s the end of this conversation.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> I said that people making blanket statements about LLMs being gimmicks need to be more creative. Then I listed a couple examples of how I find them useful, with the key point being that I don’t expect perfection.

I just want to point out that this is precisely how they described your perspective. It’s hard to see how you find their tone patronizing given they’re just explaining their point of view. It’s worth noting that others may find your words to be patronizing:

> These “AI is a gimmick that does nothing” articles mostly just communicate to me that most people lack imagination.

> Most of the critical arguments (like the link) are almost always from people that use them as basic chatbots without any sort of deeper understanding or exploration of the tools.

> I said that people making blanket statements about LLMs being gimmicks need to be more creative.

[keiferski]

If someone was trying to have the least charitable interpretation possible, then sure, the words I wrote could be interpreted as some sort of bragging about my own genius and brilliance.

For everyone else, they obviously understood I was critiquing the article and showing how I found some genuine value in AI tools by thinking a little outside the box. I.e., they aren't gimmicks.

The other poster's comments are full of a smarmy, holier-than-thou attitude of insisting that I didn't read the article, that I'm just posting this comment to brag about my creative brilliance, and that "only idiots see value in AI - but you're not an idiot, of course."

This kind of writing is by someone that's trying to be clever, not have an honest conversation.

[-__---____-ZXyw]

I was going to leave it there, as you suggested earlier, as I felt you were unable or unwilling to engage with my points, instead focusing on trivialities, tone policing, etc.

The futility is already apparent, but I'll make the same point again a third time, even though you've already shown a commitment to not understanding.

> For everyone else, they obviously understood I was critiquing the article and showing how I found some genuine value in AI tools by thinking a little outside the box. I.e., they aren't gimmicks.

The logic this sentence hinges on is that you using the tools and getting "genuine value" out of them proves that the tools are not gimmicks. This is nonsensical.

[ukuina]

Both of you have valid critiques. It seems LLMs are both creative AND insufficiently creative, depending on the intended use-case. Probably the hallmark of an advanced, yet-to-be-understood paradigm?