Can't speak for anyone else, but for me, AI/LLMs have been firmly in the "nice but forgettable" camp. Like, sometimes it's marginally more convenient to use an LLM than to do a proper web search or to figure out how to write some code—but that's a small time saving at best, it's less of a net impact than Stack Overflow was.

I'm already a pretty fast writer and programmer without LLMs. If I hadn't already learned how to write and program quickly, perhaps I would get more use out of LLMs. But the LLMs would be saving me the effort of learning which, ultimately, is an O(1) cost for O(n) benefit. Not super compelling. And what would I even do with a larger volume of text output? I already write more than most folks are willing to read...

So, sure, it's not strictly zero utility, but it's far less utility than a long series of other things.

On the other hand, trains are fucking amazing. I don't drive, and having real passenger rail is a big chunk of why I want to move to Europe one day. Being able to get places without needing to learn and then operate a big, dangerous machine—one that is statistically much more dangerous for folks with ADHD like me—makes a massive difference in my day-to-day life. Having a language model... doesn't.

And that's living in the Bay Area where the trains aren't great. Bart, Caltrain and Amtrak disappearing would have an orders of magnitude larger effect on my life than if LLMs stopped working.

And I'm totally ignoring the indirect but substantial value I get out of freight rail. Sure, ships and trucks could probably get us there, but the net increase in costs and pollution should not be underestimated.

▲

knowitnone2 7 days ago | parent [-]

No matter how good or fast you are, you will never beat the LLM. What you're saying is akin to "your math is faster than a calculator" and I'm willing to bet it's not. LLMs are not perfect and will require intervention and fixing but if it can get you 90% there, that's pretty good. In the coming years, you'll soon find your peers are performing much faster than you (assuming you program for a living) and you will have no choice but you do you.

	▲	tikhonj 7 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Fun story: when I interned at Jane Street, they gave out worksheets full of put-call parity calculations to do in your head because, when you're trading, being able to do that sort of calculation at a glance is far faster and more fluid than using a calculator or computer. So for some professionals, mental math really is faster. Make of that what you will.
	▲	globular-toast 7 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Beat an LLM at what? Lines of code per minute? Certainly not. But that's not my job. If anything I try to minimise the amount of code I output. On a good day my line count will be negative. Mathematicians are not calculators. Programmers are not typists.
	▲	WD-42 7 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		LLMs do not work the same way calculators do, not even close.
	▲	haganomy 7 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So now programmers add value when they write more code faster? Curious how this was anathema but now is a clear evidence of LLM-driven coding superiority. The math that isn't mathing is even more basic tho. This is a Concorde situation all over again. Yes, supersonic passenger jets would be amazing. And they did reach production. But the economics were not there. Yeah, using GPU farms delivers some conveniences that are real. But after 1.6 trillion dollars it's not clear at all that they are a net gain.