There's a difference between healthy skepticism and invalid, knee-jerk opposition.

LLMs are a useful tool sometimes, and I use them for refining general ideas into specific things to research, and they're pretty good at that. Sure, what they output isn't trustworthy on its own, but I can pretty easily verify most of what it spits out, and it does a great job of spitting out a lot of stuff that's related to what I asked.

For example, I'm a SW dev, so I'll often ask it stuff like, "compare and contrast popular projects that do X", and it'll find a few for me and give easily-verifiable details about each one. Sometimes it's wrong on one or two details, but it gives me enough to decide which ones I want to look more deeply into. Or I'll do some greenfield research into a topic I'm not familiar with, and it does a fantastic job of pulling out keywords and other domain-specific stuff that help refine what I search for.

LLMs do a lot less than their proponents claim, but they also do a lot more than detractors claim. They're a useful tool if you understand the limitations and have a rough idea of how they work. They're a terrible tool if you buy into the BS coming from the large corps pushing them. I will absolutely push back against people on both extremes.

VR is still cool and will probably always be cool, but I doubt it'll never be mainstream. 3D was just awkward, and they really just wanted VR but the tech wasn't there yet.

I own neither, yet I've been considering VR for a few years now, just waiting for more headsets to have proper Linux support before I get one.

Likewise, I'm not paying for LLMs, but I do use the ones my workplace provides. They're useful sometimes, and it's nice to have them as an option when I hit a wall or something. I think they're interesting and useful, but not nearly as powerful as the big corporations want you to think.

I was just trying to figure out how to express that exact sentiment. Thank you.

Can’t search for something on the net anymore without being served f-tier LLM-produced garbage.

I don't see a material difference vs the f-tier human-produced garbage we had before. Garbage content will always exist, which is why it's important to learn to how to filter it.

This is true of LLMs as well: they can and do produce garbage, but they can and are useful alternatives to existing tech. I don't use them exclusively, but as an alternative when traditional search or whatever isn't working, they're quite useful. They provide rough summaries about things that I can usually easily verify, and they produce a bunch of key words that can help refine my future searches. I use them a handful of times each week and spend more time using traditional search and reading full articles, but I do find LLMs to be a useful tool in my toolbox.

I also am frustrated by energy use, but it's one of those things that will get better over time as the LLM market matures from a gold rush into established businesses that need to actually make money. The same happens w/ pretty much every new thing in tech, there's a ton of waste until the product finds its legs and then becomes a lot more efficient.

I mean there is place in between highly skeptical and anti. I think its a faster and more convenient search as long as it gives sources and it makes creating and editing media easier. I don't like the energy usage and do like work bringing that down. Its just trying to get it to solve things on its own that seems to be pushed when we can clearly see it not working when used like that. I think the biggest issue is its crammed in as a solution and it works in the most half assed manner and they want to say that fine.

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy, but it's also quite common for people to go overboard and completely avoid a useful thing just because some rich idiot is pushing it. I've seen a lot of misinformation here on Lemmy about LLMs because people hate the environment its in (layoffs in the name of replacing people with "AI"), but they completely ignore the merit the tech has (great at summarizing and providing decent results from vague queries). If used properly, LLMs can be quite useful, but people hyper-focus on the negatives, probably because they hate the marketing material and the exceptional cases the news is great at shining a spotlight on.

I also am skeptical about LLMs usefulness, but I also find them useful in some narrow use-cases I have at work. It's not going to actually replace any of my coworkers anytime soon, but it does help me be a bit more productive since it's yet another option to get me unstuck when I hit a wall.

Just because there's something bad about something doesn't make the tech useless. If something gets a ton of funding, there's probably some merit to it, so turn your skepticism into a healthy quest for truth and maybe you'll figure out how to benefit from it.

For example, the hype around cryptocurrency makes it easy to knee-jerk reject the technology outright, because it looks like it's merely a tool to scam people out of their money. That is partially true, but it's also a tool to make anonymous transactions feasible. Yes, there are scammers out there pushing worthless coins in a pump and dump scheme, but there are also privacy-focused coins (Monero, Z-Cash, etc) that are being used today to help fund activists operating under repressive regimes. It's also used by people doing illegal things, but hey, so is cash, and privacy coins are basically easier to use cash. We probably wouldn't have had those w/o Bitcoin, though they use very different technology under the hood to achieve their aims. Maybe they're not for you, but they do help people.

Instead of focusing on the bad of a new technology, more people should focus on the good, and then weigh for themselves whether the good is worth the bad. I think in many cases it is, but only if people are sufficiently informed about how to use them to their advantage.

Your last paragraph implies that I'm naive for believing that complaining about it will make it go away, but I've done no such thing.

the market will sort that out

This is the naive statement.

Thanks for the actual response. Personally I think you sample size is way too low, and the selection is skewed towards people that already feel marginalized, which will in turn, skew your results

Exactly... I advise anyone with some kind of expertise to ask chat gpt some questions about your specific field, and see how accurate it is... Then try to ever believe it about anything else ever again.

I looked into that and the only question I really have is how geographically distributed the samples were. Other than that, It was an oversampled study, so <50% of the people were the control, of sorts. I don't fully understand how the sampling worked, but there is a substantial chart at the bottom of the study that shows the full distribution of responses. Even with under 1000 people, it seems legit.