cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/44699253
This is clearly a sign that the product failed to draw in enough customers and its viability was overhyped.
Hopefully, it is the start of the AI bubble bursting.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/44699253
This is clearly a sign that the product failed to draw in enough customers and its viability was overhyped.
Hopefully, it is the start of the AI bubble bursting.
Unpopular Opinion Incoming
I was assigned at work to evaluate a few LLMs for potential adoption, so I spent a solid week doing so.
Most of the “AI is broken and doesn’t work” on here is solid echo chamber cope. It’s more competent than several of my coworkers, though it’s thankfully not ready to replace knowledge workers as it requires a knowledge baseline to best direct it and evaluate its answers.
I still advised against using it for multiple reasons, including ethics, but much of Lemmy is playing make believe about the actual capabilities of LLMs.
Cool anecdote. Every time we actually see real data, though, the numbers don’t reflect much in the way of productivity gains or increased efficiency or better output. People say that LLMs are useful because it feels useful, but we aren’t seeing actual usefulness. The most recent study out of Duke University observes “a productivity paradox, in which perceived productivity gains are larger than measured productivity gains, likely reflecting a delay in revenue realizations.”
A delay. Sure.
Mind telling us what it is that you do? I heard similar things being said in the Plain English podcast last week (and the host was pretty anti-AI before) and I’m starting to wonder if certain jobs are going to be more affected than others.
Or are your coworkers just bad at what they do? :P When I was working tech support, there were people that were worse at their jobs than the bots of the time, let alone LLMs, I swear.