[latexr]

> I feel like there is an absurd amount of negative rhetoric about how AI doesn't have any real world use cases in this comment thread.

What I feel is people are denouncing the problems and describing them as not being worth the tradeoff, not necessarily saying it has zero use cases. On the other end of the spectrum we have claims such as:

> countless incredible use cases that are mind blowing, that you can use it every day for.

Maybe those blow your mind, but not everyone’s mind is blown so easily.

For every one of your cases, I can give you a counter example where doing the same went horribly wrong. From cases being dismissed due to non-existent laws being quoted, to people being poisoned by following LLM instructions.

> I'm worried about some of the problems LLMs will create for humanity in the future but those are problems we can solve in the future too.

No, they are not! We can’t keep making climate change worse and fix it later. We can’t keep spreading misinformation at this rate and fix it later. We can’t keep increasing mass surveillance at this rate and fix it later. That “fix it later” attitude is frankly naive. You are falling for the narrative that got us into shit in the first place. Nothing will be “fixed later”, the powerful actors will just extract whatever they can and bolt.

> and as we add them in smart ways to systems that exist today, things will only get better.

No, they will not. Things are getting worse now, it’s absurd to think it’s inevitable they’ll get better.

[r0m4n0]

Yea I do think you make a lot of valid points about the tradeoffs of the advances. I think anything we do to progress humanity technologically will have negative outcomes on everything else. I think as humans make things better for ourselves it will almost always rely on destroying something in nature in return. The capitalistic world we live in will almost always drive that to the extreme quickly.

As for the other points, are the LLMs wrong sometimes, yes. But so are humans so it's not really a novel thing to point out. The question is, are they more correct than humans? I have seen they can be more accurate, less biased, etc... and we are driving toward higher accuracy and other ways to make them right.

And the fix later attitude is not great toward everything and I was referring to the accuracy issues that people often point out as why AI is hype. The things you mention are side effects and those should be controlled because the cat is out of the bag. You can spend your time yelling at the clouds or try to do something to make it better. I assure you, capitalism is a tough enemy. This is no different than another type of combustable engine that was created that has negative consequences on the environment in different ways.

I'm not disagreeing with you... mostly just saying: the hype is warranted

[latexr]

> are the LLMs wrong sometimes, yes. But so are humans so it's not really a novel thing to point out.

The thing with humans is that you can build trust. I know exactly who to ask if I have a question about music, or medicine, or a myriad of other topics. I know those people will know the answers and be able to assess their level of confidence in them. If they don’t know, they can figure it out. If they are mistaken, they’ll come back and correct themselves without me having to do anything. Comparing LLMs to random humans is the wrong methodology.

> This is no different than another type of combustable engine that was created that has negative consequences on the environment in different ways.

Combustible engines don’t make it easy to spy on people, lie to them, and undermine trust in democracy.