> Phones sucked, pre 3G was slow, there wasn't much you could use them for before app stores and the cameras were potato quality

This is a big rewrite of history. Phones took off because before mobile phones the only way to reach a person was to call when they were at home or their office. People were unreachable for timespans that now seem quaint. Texting brought this into async. The "potato" cameras were the advent of people always having a camera with them.

People using the Nokia 3210 were very much not anticipating when their phones would get good, they were already a killer app. That they improved was icing on the cake.

▲

ARandumGuy 6 days ago | parent [-]

> People using the Nokia 3210 were very much not anticipating when their phones would get good, they were already a killer app. That they improved was icing on the cake.

It always bugs me whenever I hear someone defend some new tech (blockchain, LLMs, NFTs) by comparing it with phones or the internet or whatever. People did not need to be convinced to use cell phones or the internet. While there were absolutely some naysayers, the utility and usefulness of these technologies was very obvious by the time they became available to consumers.

But also, there's survivorship bias at play here. There are countless promising technologies that never saw widespread adoption. And any given new technology is far more likely to end up as a failure then it is to become "the next iPhone" or "the new internet."

In short, you should sell your technology based on what it can do right now, instead of what it might do in the future. If your tech doesn't provide utility right now, then it should be developed for longer before you start charging money for it. And while there's certainly some use for LLMs, a lot of the current use cases being pushed (google "AI overviews", shitty AI art, AIs writing out emails) aren't particularly useful.

▲

fragmede 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

The technology to look at is shopping carts. They're obvious to us now, but when they were first introduced, stores hired actors to use them so that real customers would adopt the habit. There are various "killer" apps that are already currently very useful for their users, but they'll take a while to percolate out as people discover them. That you don't agree with what the corpos are pushing is their bad.

▲

ARandumGuy 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

But that's just more cherry-picking. You can always find some past success to push whatever point you're trying to make. But just because shopping carts were a huge hit doesn't mean that whatever you're trying to push will be.

For example, it would be wrong for me to say that "hyperloop got a ton of hype and investments, and it failed. Therefore LLMs, which are also getting a ton of hype and investments, will also fail." Hyperloop and LLMs are fundamentally different technologies, and the failure of hyperloop is a poor indicator of whether LLMs will ultimately succeed.

Which isn't to say we can't make comparisons to previous successes or failures. But those comparisons shouldn't be your main argument for the viability of a new technology.

▲

normie3000 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> But just because shopping carts were a huge hit doesn't mean that whatever you're trying to push will be.

It may have helped that shopping carts were actively designed to be pushed.

▲

fragmede 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Unfortunately my time machine is in the shop, so I don't know what the future looks like, so looking for comparisons is just my way of looking into the future.

My main argument for the viability of the technology is that it's useful today. Even if it doesn't improve from here, my job as a coder has already been changed.

▲

bluefirebrand 6 days ago | parent [-]

> Even if it doesn't improve from here, my job as a coder has already been changed.

This is so annoying to me. My job as a coder hasn't changed because my responsibilities as a coder hasn't changed

Whether or not I beg an LLM to write code for me or write it myself the job is the same. At best there's a new tool to use but the job hasn't changed.

▲

fragmede 6 days ago | parent [-]

The responsibilities haven't changed, but the amount of time I have to spend reading documentation to regurgitate something that matches the docs in just the right way has plummeted. That wasn't the whole job, no, but that was a component of my job and to pretend otherwise would be dishonest of me. I don't know you so I don't know how much of your job was that aspect. I will be transparent and say that it did add up over a month though. Says more about me and my job than anything else though, I suppose.

▲

bluefirebrand 6 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah it adds up until you have learned it and don't need to look it up again next time

Using the LLM guarantees you will need to use the LLM every time imo

Just like using a calculator guarantees you'll never learn to do mental math. Yes it's easier and we all have calculators in our pockets now, but when you don't actually train a skill you become reliant on the tech

That's a bad outcome in many ways imo

	▲	fragmede 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		But at the end of the day, I'm not being paid because I didn't use a calculator, I'm being paid to do calculations, in this analogy. The new skill, then, is in how to use the calculator efficiently and produce more, rather than try and be better than the calculator.

▲

komali2 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

People used to fill their bags with produce, bundles or bags of fish and meat, and here and there a couple bags or boxes of dry goods.

Carts were a necessity to get people to interact with the new "center aisles" of the grocery store which is mostly full of boxed and canned garbage.

▲

raincole 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> People did not need to be convinced to use cell phones or the internet.

Plenty of people don't need to be convinced to use LLM either...