Fuck AI

4728 readers

964 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

VerbFlow@lemmy.world

MrMcGasion@lemmy.world

TootSweet@lemmy.world

BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world

cynar@lemmy.world

drmeanfeel@lemmy.world

pavnilschanda@lemmy.world

CriticalMedicine@lemmy.world

WonderfulWanderer@lemmy.world

Communist@lemmy.ml

eatCasserole@lemmy.world

SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world

NutWrench@lemmy.world

Soup@lemmy.cafe

iAvicenna@lemmy.world

Tinks@lemmy.world

wizblizz@lemmy.world

corus_kt@lemmy.world

TrickDacy@lemmy.world

andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works

MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works

33550336@lemmy.world

Nougat@fedia.io

Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world

Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world

Quill7513@slrpnk.net

glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz

e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de

ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social

What you should know from a trove of ChatGPT conversations we analyzed (finance.yahoo.com)

submitted 1 week ago by sundray@lemmus.org to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(I linked to the Yahoo version of the article because it's not paywalled. Original WaPo article is here.)

Since its public launch in late 2022, [OpenAI] promoted [ChatGPT] as a “revolutionary” productivity tool transforming the future of work. But, in an analysis of 47,000 ChatGPT conversations, The Washington Post found that users are overwhelmingly turning to the chatbot for advice and companionship, not productivity tasks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

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.