this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2025
46 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck AI
4728 readers
688 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Their conclusions might be due to the fact that people simply don't share their productivity chats.
The article doesn't really substantiate thier claim anyways. Data analysis, writing, summarization... even "seeking specific information" all seem like productivity tasks to me.
It seems to use the 10% of chats which are "abstract conversations" as justification.
Anyhow, I wholeheartedly agree that the methodology is CLEARLY flawed: there is no reason to expected shared chats are an appropriate representation of ALL chats.
But, even with the flawed sample, I don't even think it supports the assertion anyways.
True, but they also say, "It is possible that some people didn’t know their conversations would become publicly preserved online" so it's likely that many of these chats were not deliberately shared, and therefore should include productivity-related ones as well.
That still relies on the assumption that people chose to share their productivity-related chats as often as others.
They were being shared by default at first and had to opt out of sharing when many were archived. Unsure if it was true of these particular ones though.
You always had to click the share button. What they changed is if they show up on Google.
It's unlikely they knew it would become publicly available but they were still deliberately shared.