zlacker

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+(OP)
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+(OP)
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.