> "Something that describes how an AI is convincing if you don't understand its reasoning, and close to useless if you understand its limitations."

This made me laugh. Because it's the exact opposite sentiment of anti-LLM crowd. So which is it? Is it only useful if you know what you're doing or less useful if you know what you're doing?

> "I can't wait until I can jack into the Metaverse and buy an NFT with cryptocurrency just by using an LLM! Perhaps I can view it on my 3D TV by streaming it over WIMAX? I'd better stock up on quantum computers to make sure it all works."

In the author's attempt to be a smartass, they showed themselves. It makes them sound childish. Instead of just admitting they were wrong, they make some flippant remark about cryptocurrency and NFT'S, despite having vastly different purposes and goals and successes. Just take the L.

to add: "I shouldn't have to know anything about LLMs to use them correctly" is one heck of a take, but ok.

> "I don't. I hate the way this is being sold as a universal and magical tool. The reality doesn't live up to the hype."

And I hate the way in which people will do the opposite: claim it has no uses cases. It's literally the same sentiment, but in reverse. It's just as myopic and naive. But for whatever reason, we can look at a CEO hawking it and think "They're just trying to make more money" but can't see the flipside of devs not wanting to lose their livelihoods to something. We have just as much to lose as they have to gain, but want to pretend like we're objective.

3D TVs and metaverses and WiMAX and all that are prior examples of massively overhyped technological failures.

(They missed the Segway.)