This is comparing LLMs to the best humans, and concludes that LLM output is "nonsense". Well, LLM output is better than the average human's output, and there are a many of humans at and below the average.

For four billion people, using an LLM to create things is a marked improvement. I'm not sure how you'd explain the phenomenally widespread use of LLMs otherwise.

By the way: Can you tell whether my comment (this one) was written by an LLM or not?

▲

bspammer 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think your comment was not written by an LLM.

	▲	Paria_Stark 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Some people are going to spend 10 minutes refining a prompt to get a human looking 2 paragraphs message after rewriting half of it. Then they're going to be like GOTCHA I USED A LLM.

▲

zacharyvoase 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not everyone is supposed to create.

▲

stavros 4 days ago | parent [-]

The people who like creating don't use LLMs to do it, any more than the people who like cooking order takeout.

▲

dragonwriter 4 days ago | parent [-]

I know plenty of people who like to create—but who also have a better technical understanding of LLMs—who use LLMs in their workflows (some even use LLMs finetune LLMs on their own work and then incorporate them into their workflows.)

Most people who are non-technical (including most creators) have an extremely naive view of what LLMs are, mostly driven by what the media, and shills who are mostly targeting audiences that aren't creative are focused on, and their response to LLMs is shaped by that.

	▲	stavros 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I should have said "the people who like to create don't use LLMs for the parts they like creating". I like making products that are easy to use and useful, I have LLMs write 100% of the code but I still do all the UX by hand, because that's what I enjoy.