zlacker

>>LucidL+(OP)
Doesn't the existence of consumer products like ChatGPT indicate that LLMs aren't able to do human-level work? If OpenAI really had a digital workforce with the capabilities of ~100k programmers/scientists/writers/lawyers/doctors etc, wouldn't the most profitable move be to utilize those "workers" directly, rather that renting out their skills piecemeal?

>>caditi+Qe
LLMs are able to do human-level work. I think surely now that is unquestionable? They can't do all human-level work, in the same way that not all humans can do all human-level work, but a lot of criticism implicitly benchmarks it against all work. LLMs have this remarkable ability to be both the smartest thing in the room and the dumbest thing at the same time.

On the profitability point. Yes and no I guess. ChatGPT will likely go down as the most influential thing in the ai race (or early ai race) simply because it was the most visceral illustration of the art of the possible to the general public.

Technical people will correct me or have arguments to why this isn't the case but they'll be wrong simply because ChatGPT captured consumer attention, which ultimately led to supercharged financial attention, and everything that has happened since is due to that. Whether its pure marketing or futuregazing, the world of money bought into it, with the ultimate view that this is the worst it will ever be.

The ultimate profitable goal is unarguably replacing human labour (at a lesser all in cost) but if that is not possible, but you believe it could be possible, then showcasing and getting people to believe that you can achieve that goal, is pretty damn profitable too and it's proven to be for some people while giving them runway to continue to pursue the ultimate goal.

>>cal_de+Gd1
What we really need is an updated Turing test: "can a project manager tell the difference between a junior dev working remotely vs Claude Code hooked up to a Slack account?"