[pllbnk]

For most people who are not doing their day to day jobs it's just a prompt of their idea roughly sketched out and a miracle happens - LLM fills in the blanks. Every time it's different but it works, sometimes even better than initially expected. That's why the addiction and gambling. Gambling is a lot of things, not only flashing lights or play sounds. Some people claim prediction markets isn't gambling either, though that doesn't change the fact.

[stavros]

How is this different from hiring a designer, telling them "make me a website" and then waiting to see if they resolve the uncertainty into something you like or not?

I tell LLMs what to do in pretty high detail, and they do it. With LLMs I have much less variance than with coworkers.

[js8]

It is different because for humans, it takes time to produce some result, while AI does it instantly. So if you tell a programmer to do X, you have a week for your adrenaline to cool off. If you tell AI, it will do it in minutes.

[stavros]

I don't think the difference between a designer and a slot machine is that one gives you results more slowly, "therefore it's not gambling".

If you're making the argument that LLMs are gambling simply because they're faster than humans, I'd like to see some evidence.

[js8]

> If you're making the argument that LLMs are gambling simply because they're faster than humans

No I am not. It's more addictive because of the timescale. The comparison of AIs to gambling is through addiction mechanism, as I explain elsewhere.

My aunt used to put in (the same) lottery numbers every week. It was gambling, but probably not an addiction in the clinical sense. If she had played slot machines, god forbid, it could have been more problematic. AI is a slot machine, a hire is a lottery ticket.