The Internet had plenty of very productive use cases before social networking, even from its most nascent origins. Spending billions building something on the assumption that someone else will figure out what it's good for, is not good business.
But this is about one particular price/performance ratio.
You need to build things before you can see how the market responds. You say it's "not good business" but that's entirely wrong. It's excellent business. It's the only way to go about it, in fact.
Finding product-market fit is a process. Companies aren't omniscient.
Of course, this benefits the likes of Sam Altman, Satya Nadella et al, but has not produced the value promised, and does not appear poised to.
And here you have one of the supposed bleeding edge companies in this space, who very recently was shown up by a much smaller and less capitalized rival, asking their own customers to tell them what their product is good for.
Not a great look for them!
their endgame goal was to replace Human entirely, Robotic and AI is perfect match to replace all human together
They don't need to find problem because problem is full automatons from start to end
A FTL spaceship is all we need to make space travel viable between solar systems. This is the solution to depletion of resources on earth...
Or has that been a success with tons of productive uses in your opinion?
At some point, I'd like to hear more than 'trust me bro, it'll be great' when we use up non-trivial amounts of finite resources to try these 'things'.
I disagree strongly with that. Right now they are fun toys to play with, but not useful tools, because they are not reliable. If and when that gets fixed, maybe they will have productive uses. But for right now, not so much.
I use it most days when coding. Not all the time, but I’ve gotten a lot of value out of them.
And yes I'm quite aware of their pitfalls.
It makes mistakes, it gets things wrong, and it still saves a bunch of time. A 10 minute refactoring turns into 30 seconds of making a request, 15 seconds of waiting, and a minute of reviewing and fixing up the output. It can give you decent insights into potential problems and error messages. The more precise your instructions, the better they perform.
Being unreliable isn't being useless. It's like a very fast, very cheap intern. If you are good at code review and know exactly what change you want to make ahead of time, that can save you a ton of time without needing to be perfect.
I recently (in the last month) gave it a shot. I would say once in the maybe 30 or 40 times I used it did it save me any time. The one time it did I had each line filled in with pseudo code describing exactly what it should do… I just didn’t want to look up the APIs
I am glad it is saving you time but it’s far from a given. For some people and some projects, intern level work is unacceptable. For some people, managing is a waste of time.
You’re basically introducing the mythical man month on steroids as soon as you start using these
This is no less true of statements made to the contrary. Yet they are stated strongly as if they are fact and apply to anyone beyond the user making them.
Usefulness is subjective.
I read the original comment as “pay $100 and just go for it!” which didn’t seem like the right way to do it. Other comments seem to indicate there are $100 dollars worth of credits that are claimable perhaps
One can evaluate LLMs sufficiently with the free trails that abound :) and indeed one may find them worth it to themselves. I don’t disparage anyone who signs up for the plans
Programmers and the like are a large portion of LLM users and boosters; very few will deny usefulness in that/those domains at this point.
Ironically enough, I'll bet the broadest exposure to LLMs the masses have is something like MIcrosoft shoehorning copilot-branded stuff into otherwise usable products and users clicking around it or groaning when they're accosted by a pop-up for it.
That's when you learn Vim, Emacs, and/or grep, because I'm assuming that's mostly variable renaming and a few function signature changes. I can't see anything more complicated, that I'd trust an LLM with.
What?
Explain what this code syntax means…
Explain what this function does…
Write a function to do X…
Respond to my teammates in a Jira ticket explaining why it’s a bad idea to create a repo for every dockerfile…
My teammate responded with X write a rebuttal…
… and the list goes on … like forever
As an aside, I sincerely hope our “human” conversations don’t devolve into agents talking to each other. It’s just an insult to humanity.
This right here. I used to spend tons of time making sure my emails were perfect. Is it professional enough, am I being too terse, etc…