> yet to prove to be useful
I don’t understand this perspective. It should be abundantly clear at this point that these systems are quite useful for a variety of applications.
Do they have problems? Sure. Do the AI boosters who breathlessly claim that the models are super intelligent make me cringe? Sure.
But saying that they’re not useful is just downright crazy.
> If there were a revolutionary use, we would have a productivity boom. We don't.
What evidence do you have for this assertion? It seems like you are asserting something as fact when in reality it's your own personal opinion, yet ironically you are dismissing everyone else's personal experiences as mere opinion too.
> What evidence do you have for this assertion?
No predicted productivity boom (check last US data), no GDP boost yet (again last data). Even LLM enthusiast like McKinsey or Goldmansachs expect nothing before 2027.
And it's not about LLM, it's about the whole AI progress. That is, obviously, a revolution.
https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/ai-may-start-...
But just to be clear. I'm denying something said to be obvious. I should not be the one who give sources about something that doesn't exist. If there is a productivity boom, I may not have seen it. Show it to me.
> I don’t understand this perspective. It should be abundantly clear at this point that these systems are quite useful for a variety of applications.
LLM are polyvalent. But in most of the tasks they are not the most efficient way to do the task.
Want to play chess ? Use Stockfish or Leela. Want to do image recognition ? SAM or TinyViT like models. Want to know if your are sick ? Go to the doctor or at least do a search on the web.
Yes, there is tasks where LLM are perfect for (speech analysis/classification for example). But omnipotent chatbot isn't one for example.
If there were a revolutionary use, we would have a productivity boom. We don't. This article is from 2021: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/10/1026008/the-comi...