He's been mostly wrong about the potential for AI, but mostly right about the financials. Don't listen to him for opinions, but don't discount his factual reporting because his opinions are off.
I agree. I think LLMs do make specific tasks much faster (like typing code), but these tasks usually make up a small amount of people's actual work.
What I mostly meant was that Ed's view on LLMs is that they won't get much better than they are now, which—so far—has been incorrect every time he made the point. I also think he puts too much weight on things like hallucinations, which aren't much of an issue for many applications of LLMs.
For someone like Ed, it feels like way too much effort to wade through the muck.
I personally can't stand anything that whiffs of "outrage content" . Doubly so if they are stupendously wrong on a regular basis. Triply so if they never own up to those bad calls.
If someone else wants to get their hands dirty, more power to them. I'll wait for anything useful to filter through other sources.
Life is short, and there's so much other high quality material I'd rather give my limited attention to.
I don't think we are seeing productivity gains due to LLMs in the general economy yet.
Even in software development, are we seeing an increase in the number of products or features shipped?