I don't buy this whole "AI is innovative" narrative.

If AI is so innovative then why am I seeing a dumb idiot every time I discuss anything even remotely innovative with it.

Most often it cannot even produce a true sentence when the claim in the sentence is modestly strong without injecting qualifiers and distancing itself from the claim.

Having to just accept that it produces relentless innovation is so detached from reality that it is not even funny.

It is true that it can write decent code once the domain bounds are well defined. What I have found is that it is good at scrutinizing already written code - but only with expert supervision. Even then it most often tests our patience with stupid suggestions.

▲

aleph_minus_one an hour ago | parent [-]

> If AI is so innovative then why am I seeing a dumb retard everytime I discuss anything even remotely innovative with it.

My experience slightly differs: yes, LLMs are not the best entities to discuss innovative scientific ideas that one has in mind, but they are still often much more competent discussion partners on such topics than the people you are typically surrounded with (e.g. work colleagues).

(no, this is not a template for a Reddit /r/iamverysmart/ post :-) , but just my experience).

	▲	elendilm 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. Your experience mirrors mine. Yes, they are often competent discussion partners, although a lot of people I hang around with are also excellent discussion partners. But unlike with real people, LLMs have this unique property that we can abuse them without consequences directly leading to our improved understanding of the subject material using nothing but pure frustration as the motivating drive. So for me, they are productive precisely because they remain dumb discussion partners.