[thunky]

> I have the same experience and still use it. It's just that I learned to use it for simplistic work.

OP said "I don't see the productivity boost from AI" and that they don't "believe the hype" without any qualification, but then went on to say that they use it every day. This makes no sense to me.

Isn't this like saying "I don't get anything out of reading books" immediately followed by "I read books for 4 hours every night"?

[zparky]

to be fair, every other comment is usually screaming about how if you aren't able to utilize LLMs effectively, you will be without a job soon. most people want to keep their job, or be employable, so if LLMs are a required tool to know, they're trying to become fluent in it by using it.

[thunky]

> to be fair, every other comment is usually screaming about how if you aren't able to utilize LLMs effectively, you will be without a job soon

I think a lot of these "it's all overhyped crap" posts are a hypocritical.

If someone wants to be consistent with their "it's crap" argument, they wouldn't be using it for anything. Period.

If someone says they need it for their job, then they are admitting that it's useful for their job. Because it would otherwise be irrational to use a tool that makes them worse at their job.

[exfalso]

Perhaps the out of job prediction is actually reversed. True, LLMs will become an efficiency increasing tool. But in terms of job security, doesn't that mean that if your whole job can be driven by an LLM then demand for that job decreases?

In other words, people claiming these high productivity increases may be the ones at actual risk. Why employ 3 people when 1 can write the prompts?