LLMs are something nobody wants but still ChatGPT is used by 10% of the world's population as active users? How can both the sentences be true at the same time?

▲

protimewaster 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't find it hard to believe that both can be true.

I don't want to have to commute to work by driving, but I do anyway, because there's no public transit to my work.

I don't want to have to use Gmail for my work email, but that's what work wants me to use, so I use it.

Some number of people are using ChatGPT just because somebody said, "You need to know how to use AI to stay competitive."

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the sentiment, but I firmly believe both sentences can be true at the same time.

	▲	altmanaltman 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oh so they're being forced to use AI and actually hate it instead of being genuine users of the product. But even in this case, it does mean people do "want" it to a level where they are doing this to 800 million people everyday? So even in that case (if we accept it and even take it to the extreme), nobody wants AI is still factually wrong.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

shengpuerh 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Advertising is all about making you want something you don't need (e.g. for fear of being left behind). Would the want exist without silicon valley shoving it down people's throats by telling them to adapt or get left behind? I think the article uses "want" kind of loosely, because people do want to use AI and do, but I would guess that among AI users, subjective life satisfaction is is not always higher - especially if one feels compelled to do it.

	▲	altmanaltman 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't understand? Yeah advertising can be manipulative but you surely arent saying Silicon Valley is forcing 800 million people actively to use ChatGPT? Even if thats the case, why are we seeing so many competitors that are also seeing massive numbers of active users? I think its much more complex to model a world where all these active users are being manipulated etc. A much simpler explanation is that the author is pandering to a certain section of the public and basing the entire world's view through that lens. This is why its important to always be skeptical when journalists start speaking for "everyone" even in the face of data showing they are wrong.