zlacker

> I don't see anyone cooking up the next photoshop and selling it at $3/month.

That's not the situation we're talking about though. It's someone saying "hmm, I need to edit this picture. Can I get ChatGPT to do it?" where 3 years ago they would have had to buy Photoshop and learn how to use it.

Similarly, if they need a tool to batch-convert a thousand images, they're getting an LLM to construct the specific tool they need in a couple of hours and then running that, rather than buying a software product that can do it.

You don't need a whole dev team to build a one-off tool for a specific job, which is probably 90% of the demand for those software products. LLMs are becoming the general-purpose tool for a lot of use cases.

>>marcus+(OP)
>they're getting an LLM to construct the specific tool they need in a couple of hours and then running that

This is something I really hope takes off for the common person. ChatGPT is perfect for bespoke little programs that do one thing and can be discarded after use.

>>bobsmo+Ca
> bespoke little programs that do one thing and can be discarded after use.

That's my best-case scenario as well: LLMs are scripting languages for a broader audience. They just barely automate busywork, but are not a reliable foundation.

>>marcus+(OP)
ChatGPT cant do the precise photoshop tasks, not even close, infact the quality of output is worse than quality of input almost always. Ofc we live in this low quality internet now, so you may already be used to terribly edited images by AI.

>You don't need a whole dev team to build a one-off tool for a specific job, which is probably 90% of the demand for those software products. LLMs are becoming the general-purpose tool for a lot of use cases.

No, all of these tools have 90+% revenue coming from B2B sales, consumers dont buy software products anyway. All of the software purchases are tax deductible so corporations buy even if they use very little of it.

>>fallou+WZ
> ChatGPT cant do the precise photoshop tasks, not even close, infact the quality of output is worse than quality of input almost always. Ofc we live in this low quality internet now, so you may already be used to terribly edited images by AI.

Again, for 90% of use cases it will be good enough. For the 10% of use cases where it's not, yes, they'll still need to buy and learn Photoshop.

> No, all of these tools have 90+% revenue coming from B2B sales, consumers dont buy software products anyway.

I don't know the exact market breakdown of Photoshop, but I suspect it's not 90%+ B2B corporate. And my point was that even then, most corporate users are not going to need the entire Photoshop feature set, they're using it for one or two tasks that could be done better by a bespoke tool.

> All of the software purchases are tax deductible so corporations buy even if they use very little of it.

This is true now, but will change once procurement and accounting departments realise that LLMs can replace most of it.