Comment by housebear
1 year ago
How are you able to make the inference that "most people reading this got real value from an LLM. And I'm sure the author did as well." How are you so sure of that?
Speaking for myself, I've never gotten any real value from an LLM and their disappearance would not affect me in the slightest.
It sounds more like you were upset about his assertion because YOU derive value from an LLM, and are projecting that as some sort of dishonesty on the author's part.
Also, it was his intention to throw "the kitchen sink at the technology" as a means of showing its lack of value. In the same way a vegan would do exactly as you mention to show all the arguments AGAINST eating meat. It is meant to strengthen the intended argument through overwhelming evidence.
Chatgpt was the 6th (and climbing) most visited site in the world in January. Cursor is the fastest growing Saas of all time.
So yeah, most people get real value from LLMs. It's pretty plain to see, for anyone actually interested in seeing it.
As the article mentions, the number of users is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of how much positive value a tool brings to society (also factoring in the costs and negative impacts of the tool). This is a weak argument.
How much value a user gets from a tool is the users prerogative to give.
The user above is talking specifically about how much value users are getting out of LLMs. The number of users who consistently return is in fact a very good argument for the plain real world value being generated by LLMs.
4 replies →