> The measured take, that LLMs are a significant productivity tool comparable to previous technological shifts but not a rupture in the basic economic fabric, doesn’t generate much engagement. It’s boring.
This isn't a new take. The problem is, "boring" doesn't warrant the massive bet the market has made on it, so this argument is essentially "AI is worthless" to someone significantly invested.
It's not so much that people aren't making this argument, it's that it's being tossed immediately into the "stochastic parrot" bunch.
I will say that I'm not entirely clear on how the boring case- which I agree seems most likely- manages to pay for all this massive investment in datacenters, power plants, new frontier models, etc. OpenAI has already raised 60Gigabucks from people who are expecting a return on that money, and since it is not actually profitable yet it will need to raise more money to get to that point. I'm not clear on how they manage to make enough profit to pay off all that investment if AI is actually a "5-25% improvement in productivity for some classes of white collar workers" sort of proposition.
This isn't a new take. The problem is, "boring" doesn't warrant the massive bet the market has made on it, so this argument is essentially "AI is worthless" to someone significantly invested.
It's not so much that people aren't making this argument, it's that it's being tossed immediately into the "stochastic parrot" bunch.