Single stories of LLM success are just as problematic as single stories of LLM failures. As always. The fact is that we have a dangerous tool at hand that absolutely REQUIRES skepticism if you are trying to get *facts* out of it.
I agree that LLMs are extremely likely to impact many areas of work, particularly bullshit work. But as it stands you absolutely cannot use them as fact machines, the results can be catastrophic.
What it does well, among others:
- Scaffolding text, breaking writers block etc.
- Compose basic texts from minimal input, for example for bullshit tasks -> I generated an internal "vision statement" during a Miro workshop for my team by inputting a bunch of bullet points gathered from the team members brain storming. It created a concise, fluid text that everybody liked. It's now the vision statement.
- Point you in good directions, give you ideas
What it does NOT well, among others:
- provide factual responses. all responses MUST be scrutinized because they are likely containing false information. This is very dangerous for society ("Can I take this medicine with this other medicine?")
- Compose creative texts that are coherent and novel. ChatGPT texts can be quite fun but they rarely make sense beyond very superficial screening and convey no deeper message.
However, ChatGPT-like tools are used with a lot of naivety and often blind acceptance instead of using them as tools to aid your work.