I'm a pretty staunch skeptic about AIs utility - I think the executive class bought into the hype and were seduced by the prospect of big waves of delicious redundancies with the attendant stock boosts, without ever actually bothering to find out if it works.
That said the article refers to that MIT study that is quite dated, and (like many) somewhat mis-characterize its findings.
For anyone who's tried to solve linguistic processing tasks with traditional methods (or even tried to write a text adventure!), it's clear there's huge potential of LLMs for /something/, but the idea that there's a way to pay for the operating costs and absurd levels of investment that has already happened is laughable.
I'm a pretty staunch skeptic about AIs utility - I think the executive class bought into the hype and were seduced by the prospect of big waves of delicious redundancies with the attendant stock boosts, without ever actually bothering to find out if it works.
That said the article refers to that MIT study that is quite dated, and (like many) somewhat mis-characterize its findings.
For anyone who's tried to solve linguistic processing tasks with traditional methods (or even tried to write a text adventure!), it's clear there's huge potential of LLMs for /something/, but the idea that there's a way to pay for the operating costs and absurd levels of investment that has already happened is laughable.