Oh, I think we both know the answer to that question.

when a lot of its practical utility is in fairly mundane office and middle-management work, no?

So business created inefficient ways of working then pat themselves on the back when they come up with an expensive shortcut?

Or you know, office processes are the problem.

But even fairly modest productivity gains multiplied across millions of workers can have enormous consequences.

Good yes finally! We need to burn the planet for modest productivity gains.

You looked at the amount of solar the world has implemented over the last couple of years to compensate though?

Or how fast a unit of work has been getting exponentially cheaper over very short spaces of time?

You’re not unreasonable in glancing at the situation and seeing Doom, dont get me wrong, but if you do more than glance there is a more positive picture forming.

Of course, political reform will be crucial or we’re fucked either way.

You can’t compensate for wantan abuse.

The alternative means for producing sufficient energy for a better standard of living than most of us are privileged enough to experience has been around for several decades now(much longer with caveats).

These decisions to not only continue to use fossil fuels but to accelerate the pace of ecological destruction in the name of “compute”, all the while failing to benefit or protect the rights of laborers, are purely political and always has been.

political reform will be crucial or we’re fucked either way.

Politics is the choice between a solarpunk or a cyberpunk present. It could be better today if we simply choose.

Agreed 🤷‍♂️

middle-management

Trust me… middle managers using LLMs are not doing anything but throwing slop everywhere

What were they doing before?

The good ones? Nothing that benefits from LLMs and isn’t made worse by being slopped up.

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.

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.

These are just assertions.

If they were true, nobody would be using them.

Millions upon millions of people are using them every day?

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 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.

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.

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!

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?