Widespread use alone isn’t conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you’ve correctly identified what they’ve all somehow missed.
Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn’t establish that LLMs don’t improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse.
At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse.
I agree. They’re far far more often misused than used effectively, however.
thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you’ve correctly identified what they’ve all somehow missed.
Yes, this is obvious for anyone that has eyes and isn’t a sycophant.
Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you’re just asserting that they’re misused far more often than not.
But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly.
My observations have just as much merit as your speculation that somehow companies by default make good decisions. I don’t know why you have it stuck in your head that is a valid logical foundation, but you are incorrect.
In any case, you clearly don’t have anything else to offer, so I think we’re done here. Have a nice day!
Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference.
Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it?
Widespread use alone isn’t conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you’ve correctly identified what they’ve all somehow missed.
Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn’t establish that LLMs don’t improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse.
I agree. They’re far far more often misused than used effectively, however.
Yes, this is obvious for anyone that has eyes and isn’t a sycophant.
Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you’re just asserting that they’re misused far more often than not.
But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly.
I never said they couldn’t. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you
My observations have just as much merit as your speculation that somehow companies by default make good decisions. I don’t know why you have it stuck in your head that is a valid logical foundation, but you are incorrect.
In any case, you clearly don’t have anything else to offer, so I think we’re done here. Have a nice day!
Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference.
Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it?