zlacker

> I said that people making blanket statements about LLMs being gimmicks need to be more creative. Then I listed a couple examples of how I find them useful, with the key point being that I don’t expect perfection.

I just want to point out that this is precisely how they described your perspective. It’s hard to see how you find their tone patronizing given they’re just explaining their point of view. It’s worth noting that others may find your words to be patronizing:

> These “AI is a gimmick that does nothing” articles mostly just communicate to me that most people lack imagination.

> Most of the critical arguments (like the link) are almost always from people that use them as basic chatbots without any sort of deeper understanding or exploration of the tools.

> I said that people making blanket statements about LLMs being gimmicks need to be more creative.

>>lcnPyl+(OP)
If someone was trying to have the least charitable interpretation possible, then sure, the words I wrote could be interpreted as some sort of bragging about my own genius and brilliance.

For everyone else, they obviously understood I was critiquing the article and showing how I found some genuine value in AI tools by thinking a little outside the box. I.e., they aren't gimmicks.

The other poster's comments are full of a smarmy, holier-than-thou attitude of insisting that I didn't read the article, that I'm just posting this comment to brag about my creative brilliance, and that "only idiots see value in AI - but you're not an idiot, of course."

This kind of writing is by someone that's trying to be clever, not have an honest conversation.

>>keifer+uf
Both of you have valid critiques. It seems LLMs are both creative AND insufficiently creative, depending on the intended use-case. Probably the hallmark of an advanced, yet-to-be-understood paradigm?

>>keifer+uf
I was going to leave it there, as you suggested earlier, as I felt you were unable or unwilling to engage with my points, instead focusing on trivialities, tone policing, etc.

The futility is already apparent, but I'll make the same point again a third time, even though you've already shown a commitment to not understanding.

> For everyone else, they obviously understood I was critiquing the article and showing how I found some genuine value in AI tools by thinking a little outside the box. I.e., they aren't gimmicks.

The logic this sentence hinges on is that you using the tools and getting "genuine value" out of them proves that the tools are not gimmicks. This is nonsensical.