> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> questioning the value of a chatbot

Original commenter was questioning the value of the entire field.

> hasn’t had a real job”

This is different than “haven't worked in a 'real' business”.

Ironic given yours and others emphasis on my choosing "chatbot" to summarise llms as a reason to dismiss my comment, along with the rest of the pedantry. The upstream post dismissed / insulted the person for questioning value, which was what I called out.

If you really had wanted to get into the "HN rules" game, you could at least have cited "don't be snarky"

> dismissed / insulted the person

That wasn't even remotely my goal and I'm disappointed that my choice of words made it seem like it was. I purposefully added quotes to the word 'real' in my comment since any business is a real business and made it clear it was an assumption, not a fact.

It's just that many tech workers often haven't worked outside of tech and therefore are blind to issues outside of the tech world, like manual data entry, because they assume that must all be automated. It's exactly the same the other way around, people in what I called 'real' businesses are blind to what tech can to to improve business processes because they have no clue about what's available and possible.

Thanks for putting in the effort to clarify. I get it.

Translation: “Real” businesses sort of make their own gravity.

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.

You weakened the argument by portraying it as more insulting against a narrower claim than it was.

But yes, also snarky.

Real Job vs. outdated job.

You don't want to know how many companies still get paper bills scan them and add them to their system half manually.

And normal people without scripting experience never had the tools to just do a little bit of text analysis without tools like chargpt.

They weren't questioning the value if the chat bot, they were questioning the value of the models based on only the high profile use cases such as a now (in)famous chat bot. That, to me, showed that they have a narrow view of the problems that this stuff could solve when applied outside of those high profile use cases. So I made an (explicit) assumption that they mostly worked in tech and not outside of tech, which limits the view of the world outside of tech.

I don't think donkeyd was trying to insult the person he was replying to, but he definitely could have worded that better. I think he's using "real job" in a derogatory sense directed at businesses, how most of them are so inefficient and rote that they'd stand to gain from the roteness of something like GPT, and that the person he's replying to, perhaps fortunately, hasn't experienced that type of business.

they mean they didn't have a job where neither ai or bad workers should be used.