Google does put AI output at the top of every search now, and sometimes it's helpful and sometimes it's crap. They have been trying since long before LLMs to not just provide the links for a search but also the content.

Google used to be interested in making sure you clicked either the paid link or the top link in the results, but for a few years now they'd prefer that a user doesn't even click a link after a search (at least to a non-Google site)

Low effort Youtube shorts with AI voice annoy the crap out of me.

After all this hype, they still can't do text to speech properly. Pause at the wrong part of the sentence all the time.

I think the thing people hate about that is the lack of effort and attention to detail. It’s an incredible enabler for laziness if misused.

If somebody writes a design or a report, you expect that they’ve put in the time and effort to make sure it is correct and well thought out.

If you then find the person actually just had ChatGPT generate it and didn’t put any effort into editing it and checking for correctness, then that is very infuriating.

They are essentially farming out the process of creating the document to AI and farming out the process of reviewing it to their colleagues. So what is their job then, exactly?

These are tools, not a replacement for human thought and work. Maybe someday we can just have ChatGPT serve as an engineer or a lawyer, but certainly not today.

> While people seem to love the output of their own queries they seem to hate the output of other people's queries

Listening or trying to read other peoples chats with these things is like listening to somebody describe a dream. It’s just not that interesting most of the time. It’s remarkable for the person experiencing it but it is deeply personal.

If I cared about the output from other people's queries then wouldn't they be my queries? I don't care about ChatGPTs response to your queries is because I don't care about your queries. I don't care if they came from ChatGPT or the world's foremost expert in whatever your query was about.

Had someone put up a project plan for something that was not disclosed as LLM assisted output.

While technically correct it came to the wrong conclusions about the best path forward and inevitably hamstrung the project.

I only discovered this later when attempting to fix the mess and having my own chat with an LLM and getting mysteriously similar responses.

The problem was that the assumptions made when asking the LLM were incorrect.

LLMs do not think independently and do not have the ability to challenge your assumptions or think laterally. (yet, possibly ever, one that does may be a different thing).

Unfortunately, this still makes them as good as or better than a very large portion of the population.

I get pissed off not because of the new technology or the use of the LLM, but the lack of understanding of the technology and the laziness with which many choose to deliver the results of these services.

I am more often mad at the person for not doing their job than I am at the use of a model, the model merely makes it easier to hide the lack of competence.

Especially if it's not disclosed up front, and especially when it supplants higher-value content. I've been shocked how little time it's taken for AI slop SEO optimized blogs to overtake the articles written by genuine human experts, especially in niche product reviews and technical discussions.

However, whether or not people like it is almost irrelevant. The thing that matters is not whether economics likes it.

At least so far, it looks like economics absolutely loves LLMs: Why hire expensive human customer support when you can just offload 90% of the work to a computer? Why pay expensive journalists when you can just have the AI summarize it? Why hire expensive technical writers to document your code when you can just give it to the AI and check the regulatory box with docs that are good enough?

No… dude… it’s a new household name. We haven’t had those in software for a long time, maybe since TikTok and Fortnite.

"Here's what chatGPT said about..." Is the new lmgtfy

This isn't some niche outcry: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2024/03/19/is-the-p...

And that was 18 months ago.

Yes, believe it or not, people eventually wake up and realize slop is slop. But like everything else with LLM development, tech is trying to brute force it on people anyway.

It’s not a wild claim, though maybe your interpretation is wild.

I never said Perplexity individually is challenging Google, but rather as part of a group of apps including ChatGPT, which you conveniently left out of your quote.

Asking your Instagram Users to hop on to your ready made TikTok Clone is hardly in the same sphere as spinning up that much users from nothing.

And while Threads growth and usage stalled, ChatGPT is very much still growing and has *far* more monthly visits than threads.

There's really nothing meaningless about ChatGPT being the 5th most visited site on the planet, not even 3 years after release. Threads doesn't make the top 50.

Neal Stephenson has a recent post that covers some of this. Also links to teachers talking about many students just putting all their work into chatgpt and turning it in.

https://nealstephenson.substack.com/p/emerson-ai-and-the-for...