I think it's an excellent example to be honest. Most of the time whenever someone proposes some use case for a large language model that's not just being a chat bot, it's either a bad idea, or a decent idea that you'd do much better with something much less fancy (like this, where you'd obviously prefer some length threshold) than with a large language model. It's wild how often I've heard people say "we should have an AI do X" when X is something that's very obviously either a terrible idea or best suited for traditional algorithms.

Sort of like how most of the time when people proposed a non-cryptocurrency use for "blockchain", they had either re-invented Git or re-invented the database. The similarity to how people treat "AI" is uncanny.

> It's wild how often I've heard people say "we should have an AI do X" when X is something that's very obviously either a terrible idea or best suited for traditional algorithms.

Likewise when smartphones were new, everyone and their mother was certain that random niche thing that made no sense as an app would be a perfect app and that if they could just get someone to make the app they’d be rich. (And of course ideally, the idea haver of the misguided idea would get the lions share of the riches, and the programmer would get a slice of pizza and perhaps a percentage or two of ownership if the idea haver was extra generous.)