▲ 1038 ▼ Bernie Sanders says if AI is coming for workers, it should bring a four-day workweek with it (fortune.com) submitted 3 weeks ago by Mustachius_Grumpius@thelemmy.club to c/technology@lemmy.world 209 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago (10 children) What were they doing before? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago (9 children) The good ones? Nothing that benefits from LLMs and isn't made worse by being slopped up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago* (8 children) Imo, they're just doing the same shit slightly faster. Whether or not it has value is separate and mostly in the eye of the beholder. Slop is a thought-terminating buzzword, you're relying on it too heavily to make your point and it undermines you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children) OK instead of slop I'll say anything they put in writing is less accurate and more verbose. It may be faster for them to do to it but any gain is canceled out then multiplied by the number of people having to parse through it... Or I could say slopified and anyone that has actually experienced it will know what I mean. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children) doing the same shit slightly faster. That is also just an assertion. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? The fact people do something doesn't say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity. Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago (9 children) The good ones? Nothing that benefits from LLMs and isn't made worse by being slopped up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago* (8 children) Imo, they're just doing the same shit slightly faster. Whether or not it has value is separate and mostly in the eye of the beholder. Slop is a thought-terminating buzzword, you're relying on it too heavily to make your point and it undermines you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children) OK instead of slop I'll say anything they put in writing is less accurate and more verbose. It may be faster for them to do to it but any gain is canceled out then multiplied by the number of people having to parse through it... Or I could say slopified and anyone that has actually experienced it will know what I mean. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children) doing the same shit slightly faster. That is also just an assertion. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? The fact people do something doesn't say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity. Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago* (8 children) Imo, they're just doing the same shit slightly faster. Whether or not it has value is separate and mostly in the eye of the beholder. Slop is a thought-terminating buzzword, you're relying on it too heavily to make your point and it undermines you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children) OK instead of slop I'll say anything they put in writing is less accurate and more verbose. It may be faster for them to do to it but any gain is canceled out then multiplied by the number of people having to parse through it... Or I could say slopified and anyone that has actually experienced it will know what I mean. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children) doing the same shit slightly faster. That is also just an assertion. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? The fact people do something doesn't say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity. Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children) OK instead of slop I'll say anything they put in writing is less accurate and more verbose. It may be faster for them to do to it but any gain is canceled out then multiplied by the number of people having to parse through it... Or I could say slopified and anyone that has actually experienced it will know what I mean. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children) doing the same shit slightly faster. That is also just an assertion. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? The fact people do something doesn't say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity. Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children) doing the same shit slightly faster. That is also just an assertion. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? The fact people do something doesn't say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity. Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children) doing the same shit slightly faster. That is also just an assertion. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? The fact people do something doesn't say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity. Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child) Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 weeks ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent