I was reflecting on old technologies that were supposedly revolutionary at the time, like palm pilots, and what value they really provided. Like, I can imagine a someone at that time using a palm pilot and claiming that it's making them more "productive."

Looking back though, such technologies are nothing compared to what we have. So there's a perceived gap between our current state of technology (LLMs etc.) and the past, yet the gains in productivity don't seem to match this perception (e.g. if our tools are 1000x better, why do I feel only like 1.1x more productive. revolutionary AI tools? still, I only feel at most 1.1x more productive in life in general).

My idea is that such technologies' utility is secondary to their signaling power. Like, users seeing value in Apple Intelligence isn't the point. Rather, integrating AI into your product is a signal of competitive prowess. And using AI, even if it makes you less productive and produce worse work, signals your faith in technological progress and innovation.