• Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    vor 2 Tagen

    Possibly, but there’s no practical use for it in my industry, and everything I’ve seen it try and do has been, at best, mediocre. I’ve also noticed that the people who are most enthusiastic about it are never particularly impressive themselves.

    Overall, I think it gets far more credit than it deserves, from both it’s fans and critics.

    • NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      vor 2 Tagen

      Kinda makes sense that the people you see getting the most out of it aren’t particularly “impressive” when a lot of its practical utility is in fairly mundane office and middle-management work, no?

      But even fairly modest productivity gains multiplied across millions of workers can have enormous consequences.

      Whether or not those workers will actually see any financial benefits out of it is a different question entirely.

      • untorquer@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        vor 2 Tagen

        But even fairly modest productivity gains multiplied across millions of workers can have enormous consequences.

        Good yes finally! We need to burn the planet for modest productivity gains.

        • NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          vor 1 Tag

          You looked at the amount of solar the world has implemented over the last couple of years to compensate though?

          Or how fast a unit of work has been getting exponentially cheaper over very short spaces of time?

          You’re not unreasonable in glancing at the situation and seeing Doom, dont get me wrong, but if you do more than glance there is a more positive picture forming.

          Of course, political reform will be crucial or we’re fucked either way.

          • untorquer@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            vor 1 Tag

            You can’t compensate for wantan abuse.

            The alternative means for producing sufficient energy for a better standard of living than most of us are privileged enough to experience has been around for several decades now(much longer with caveats).

            These decisions to not only continue to use fossil fuels but to accelerate the pace of ecological destruction in the name of “compute”, all the while failing to benefit or protect the rights of laborers, are purely political and always has been.

            political reform will be crucial or we’re fucked either way.

            Politics is the choice between a solarpunk or a cyberpunk present. It could be better today if we simply choose.

      • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        vor 2 Tagen

        when a lot of its practical utility is in fairly mundane office and middle-management work, no?

        So business created inefficient ways of working then pat themselves on the back when they come up with an expensive shortcut?

        Or you know, office processes are the problem.

      • Feyd@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        vor 1 Tag

        middle-management

        Trust me… middle managers using LLMs are not doing anything but throwing slop everywhere

          • Feyd@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            vor 1 Tag

            The good ones? Nothing that benefits from LLMs and isn’t made worse by being slopped up.

            • NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              vor 1 Tag

              Imo, they’re just doing the same shit slightly faster. Whether or not it has value is separate and mostly in the eye of the beholder.

              Slop is a thought-terminating buzzword, you’re relying on it too heavily to make your point and it undermines you.

              • Feyd@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                vor 1 Tag

                OK instead of slop I’ll say anything they put in writing is less accurate and more verbose. It may be faster for them to do to it but any gain is canceled out then multiplied by the number of people having to parse through it… Or I could say slopified and anyone that has actually experienced it will know what I mean.

                • NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  vor 1 Tag

                  These are just assertions.

                  If they were true, nobody would be using them.

                  Millions upon millions of people are using them every day?

                  • Feyd@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    vor 1 Tag

                    doing the same shit slightly faster.

                    That is also just an assertion.

                    If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day?

                    The fact people do something doesn’t say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity.

                    Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower.