These “AI is a gimmick that does nothing” articles mostly just communicate to me that most people lack imagination. I have gotten so much value out of AI (specifically ChatGPT and Midjourney) that it’s hard to imagine that a few years ago this was not even remotely possible.
The difference, it seems, is that I’ve been looking at these tools and thinking how I can use them in creative ways to accomplish a goal - and not just treating it like a magic button that solves all problems without fine-tuning.
To give you a few examples:
- There is something called the Picture Superiority Effect, which states that humans remember images better than merely words. I have been interested in applying this to language learning – imagine a unique image for each word you’re learning in German, for example. A few years ago I was about to hire an illustrator to make these images for me, but now with Midjourney or other image creators, I can functionally make unlimited unique images for $30 a month. This is a massive new development that wasn’t possible before.
- I have been working on a list of AI tools that would be useful for “thinking” or analyzing a piece of writing. Things like: analyze the assumptions in this piece; find related concepts with genealogical links; check if this idea is original or not; rephrase this argument as a series of Socratic dialogues. And so on. This kind of thing has been immensely helpful in evaluating my own personal essays and ideas, and prior to AI tools it, again, was not really possible unless I hired someone to critique my work.
The key for both of these example use cases is that I have absolutely no expectation of perfection. I don’t expect the AI images or text to be free of errors. The point is to use them as messy, creative tools that open up possibilities and unconsidered angles, not to do all the work for you.
> These “AI is a gimmick that does nothing” articles mostly just communicate to me that most people lack imagination.
Either that or different people have different views on life, tech, &c.
If you're not going through life as some sort of minmax rpg not using LLM to "optimise" every single aspects of your life is perfectly fine. I don't need a LLM to summarise an article, I want to read it during my 15 min coffee time in the morning. I don't need an LLM to tell me how my text should be rewritten to look like the statistical average of a good text...
>> These “AI is a gimmick that does nothing” articles mostly just communicate to me that most people lack imagination.
> Either that or different people have different views on life, tech, &c.
Most definitely. When stable diffusion came out, I recall AI enthusiasts gushing and saying things like it was "creating the most beautiful art they've ever seen," which just made me scratch my head and wonder what they were smoking.
> If you're not going through life as some sort of minmax rpg not using LLM to "optimise" every single aspects of your life is perfectly fine. I don't need a LLM to summarise an article, I want to read it during my 15 min coffee time in the morning.
Exactly. Some people want to actually understand stuff, in their own minds, and some people seem to be fine teetering on top of an output machine they don't really understand.
On that summarization thing specifically, pre-LLM there were services that did that (my manager subscribed me to one once), and it never clicked with me. Why would I waste my time consuming such shallow stuff? I never felt it had any impact, it felt like fluff to make it feel like you were learning something when you weren't. Which is ironic, because the people who seem enthusiastic about that stuff are under the false impression that everything is like three bullet points wrapped in fluff.
> I don't need an LLM to tell me how my text should be rewritten to look like the statistical average of a good text...
The article is mostly about the use of genAI in education.
It was written after the author attended a workshop where the presenter tried and seemingly failed to show how AI was able to write essays when prompted with the word "innovative" or produce a podcast on a book.
The author also mentions an article by a university lecturer who claims that "Human interaction is not as important to today’s students" and that AI will basically replace it.
The subtitle of the article is "AI cannot save us from the effort of learning to live and die."
In other words, the article is about a specific trend in higher education to present AI as some sort of revolutionary tool that will completely change the way students learn.
The author disagrees and contends that pretending to replace most human interactions with genAI is a gimmick, and pretending that AI can make learning effortless is lying to students.
The way you use AI for learning language is certainly imaginative but you are not claiming that it replaces the quality of interacting with native speakers or possibly immersion in the culture. Your tool may be useful and clever but claiming it makes learning language effortless (as some AI apologists in education might) would make it a gimmick.
> These “AI is a gimmick that does nothing” articles
I don't think that's an accurate summary of this article. Are you basing that just on the title, or do you fundamentally disagree with the author here?
> We call something a gimmick, the literary scholar Sianne Ngai points out, when it seems to be simultaneously working too hard and not hard enough. It appears both to save labor and to inflate it, like a fanciful Rube Goldberg device that allows you to sharpen a pencil merely by raising the sash on a window, which only initiates a chain of causation involving strings, pulleys, weights, levers, fire, flora, and fauna, including an opossum. The apparatus of a large language model really is remarkable. It takes in billions of pages of writing and figures out the configuration of words that will delight me just enough to feed it another prompt. There’s nothing else like it.
Not sure how that definition of a gimmick applies to what I wrote. Labeling AI tools as gimmicks would imply that they both save labor and inflate it and therefore offer no real fundamental improvements or value.
In my own experience, that is absolute nonsense, and I have gotten immense amounts of value from it. 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.
In a more perfect world where we were just discussing the merits of the tech, I would be more inclined to agree. But I have to impress that the entire point of the tech is to do everything.
AI receives so much funding and support from the wealthy because they believe that they can use it to replace humans and reduce labor costs. I strongly suspect that AI being available to us at all is merely a plot to get us to train and troubleshoot the tech for them so it can more perfectly imitate us. Then, eventually, when the tech is "good enough" it will rapidly become too expensive for normal people to use and thus become inaccessible.
Companies are already mass-firing their staff in favor of AI agents even though those agents don't even do a good job. Imagine how it will be when they do.
Oh you strongly suspect a global cabal of wealthy elites are manipulating the world? What does your unsupported musings about global power have to do with AI use cases?
> value out of AI (specifically ChatGPT and Midjourney)
The one area I would agree that AI and ML tools have been surprisingly good, art generation.
But then, I see the flood of AI generated pictures and overall, feel it has made a already troublesome world, even more troublesome. I am starting to see the "the picture is AI made, or AI modified" excuses coming into mainstream.
A picture now, has lost all meaning.
> be useful for “thinking” or analyzing a piece of writing
This, I am highly skeptical of. If you train an LLM with words of "trains can fly", then it spits that out. They may be good as summarizing or search tools, but to claim them to be "thinking" and "analyzing", nah.
The fact that most ai art is generic garbage just reflects the lack of imagination most people have when making it. Sad but true. The actual tools themselves are incredible.
And I meant myself thinking and analyzing a piece of writing with the help of ChatGPT, not ChatGPT itself “thinking.” (Although I frankly think this is somewhat of an irrelevant point, if the machine is thinking.) Because I have absolutely gained tons of new insights and knowledge by asking ChatGPT to analyze an idea and suggest similar concepts.
Most people are not motivated to continuously learn or dive deep or explore the boundary of knowledge. As a result, it's very likely AI will amplify or deepen the current skip gaps and create more. People who are good at learning and can deeply understand foundational concepts will be able to leverage AI to learn more, learn deeper, and solve harder problems on demand. People who resist learning will use AI as a cheating tool, eventually bringing themselves into a pickle.
Case in point, a PIAAC report back in 2013 said that only 9% of the US adults were considered proficient in math and complex reasoning. And the questions used by PIAAC were arguably just high-school level. Anecdotally, how many people have heard their professors or high-school teachers complain that most students couldn't even really grasp linear equations or distributed property (students can remember rules and pass high-school test, but many of them would be hopeless if they were to pass national entrance exams in other countries).
Really interesting how the poster gets very defensive when rightfully called out on it too.
We’re going to see similar emotional outbursts in the future. Probably going to need new strategies to convince people why they are wrong. Even harder when the parrot says they’re actually right.
Yeah, it’s misplaced frustration at the surrounding overhype. I always imagine the authors would be vocal advocates if they “discovered” the service & no one else knew about it.
The frustration is quite valid. The overhype is not only misleading, but it's used to artificially inflate valuations. The entire industry is driven by hype to attract investors with the hope everyone will cash out one day. No AI company has turned a profit yet.
This isn't to say that the technology can't be useful, but that the hype around it is exhausting. This bubble is much bigger than the dot-com one, and the effects when it bursts will be far worse.
I think it is more like giving someone a swiss army knife and they complain it won't even cut a piece of wood because their role in society is being compensated for cutting wood. All they know how to do is cut wood. They aren't even interested in anything but cutting wood.
So basically, you are happy because AI could replace a human for cheap?
I mean sure, from a purely profit oriented point of view it's good but you need to realize the human being replaced isn't feeling too good about it. Especially when the AI works because it has used input from works of people like him.
The people possessing the capital for AI are pretty happy about the results for sure but they need to think about sharing the wealth created because otherwise this is just an unfair transfer of value to an already rich and powerful small group of people.
No, that isn’t an accurate description of what I wrote.
In my situation there were no humans being replaced, because I didn’t have the budget to spend thousands of dollars hiring illustrators to make images or academics to review my writing. No one lost work because of AI, but I was able to create new value by using AI. That’s pretty much the pattern of every new technology, from photography replacing portrait painters to widespread literacy replacing letter writers.
Maybe one could make the argument that across the economy as a whole, some jobs are being replaced by AI. Which is indeed true - however, my point was about using these tools for creative individual purposes.
I personally feel like some of the AI hype is driven by it's ability to create flashy demos which become dead end projects.
It's so easy to spin up an example "write me a sample chat app" or whatever and be amazed how quickly and fully it realizes this idea, but it does kinda beg the question, now what?
I think in the same way that image generation is akin to clipart (wildly useful, but lacking in depth and meaning) the AI code generation projects are akin to webpage templates. They can help get you started, and take you further than you could on your own, but ultimately you have to decide "now what" after you take that first (AI) step.
"It's so easy to spin up an example "write me a sample chat app" or whatever and be amazed how quickly and fully it realizes this idea, but it does kinda beg the question, now what?"
Which we already had, it's just a 'git clone https://github.com/whatevs/huh' away, or doing one of millions of tutorials on whatever topic. Pretty much everyone who can build something out of Elixir/Phoenix has a chat app, an e-commerce store and a scraping platform just laying around.
The demos I see all make compromises in order to work that hobble you from hardening them or otherwise lock you to very specific conceptualizations that you simply wouldn't have building from the smallest low level building blocks or even starting at a super high level state machine placeholder. In my experience no matter how hard I try it will be guided by the weights of the total generated output towards something that doesn't understand the value of compartmentalization, and will add tokens that make its probabilities work internally above all.
AI is gimmick, smartphones are gimmick, computers are gimmick, automation is gimmick, books are gimmick, only %MY_ENLIGHTMENT% is not.
Seriously, I understand saying something lime this about crypto or whatever meme of the day, but even current LLMs are literal magic. Instead of reading 10 pages of empty water and wasting my time, ChatGPT can summarize this as
> Malesic argues that AI hype—especially in education—is a shallow gimmick: it overpromises revolutionary change but delivers banal, low-value outputs. True teaching thrives on slow, sacrificial human labor and deep discussion, which no AI shortcut can replicate.
There was this widely discussed paper about how using ai generated data for training will be the death of llms that was published about a week before all llms switched to using ai generated data for training and becoming twice as good as before
Out of curiosity, I used ChatGPT to make a summary of “FreeBSD vs Linux comparison”, and if came out as extremely fair and to the point, in my opinion.
> Instead of reading 10 pages of empty water and wasting my time, ChatGPT can summarize this as
Definitely worth investing billions and wasting insane amount of energy... idk how people merge the "this is a revolution!" and "it kinda summed up a 10 pages pdf that I couldn't bother to read in the first place" without noticing the insane amount of mental gymnastic you have to go through to reconcile these two ideas.
Not even mentioning the millions of new LLM generated pages that are now polluting the web
> Not even mentioning the millions of new LLM generated pages that are now polluting the web
yes because before 2022 the internet was a pristine landscape, unmarred by trash and nonsense.
look in all seriousness there are valid critiques of LLMs/AI (environmental, excessive short term optimism, intentional and unintentional misuse).
but pretending that this isn't a revolutionary change is profoundly blind. 'AI' can't do everything CIOs would like to promise their CEOs it can do, and it certainly can't do everything that non-IT executives think it might be able to do, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is already capable of saving MASSIVE amounts of time in multiple areas, some of the best of these are:
* Research
* Editing
* Translation
* Code generation
All of these require the user to not turn off their brain (which is a real risk with LLMs) to properly use AI, but assuming you are capable of using your brain they can save a great deal of time.
Your strawman notwithstanding - yes, absolutely worth every single billion invested in it. A freaking machine can understand the text, stitch *MILLIONS* of information sources under a minute and provide me summarization of the text, resources to read about this topic and switch to completely unrelated topic if needed.
For me the usefulness of LLMs is proportional to how shitty google has become. When searching for something you get a bunch of blog spam or other SSO optimised shit results to pages that open dozens of popups asking you to subscribe or make an account. ChatGPT gives you the answer immediately and I must say I find it helpful 90% of the time.
For simple coding questions it is also very good because it takes your current context into account. It is basically a smarter "copy paste from stack overflow".
At least for now LLMs do not replace any meaningful work for me, but they replace google more and more.
> “Human interaction is not as important to today’s students,” Latham claims
Goodness that's depressing. Is this going to crank individualism up to 11?
I remember hating having to do group projects in school. Most often, 3/5 of the group would contribute jack shit, while the remaining people had to pick up the slack. But even with lazy gits, the interactions were what made it valuable.
Maybe human/-I cooperation is an important skill for people to learn, but it shouldn't come at the cost of losing even more human-human cooperation and interaction.
> Most often, 3/5 of the group would contribute jack shit, while the remaining people had to pick up the slack.
Never fear, nowadays 3/5 do squat with the 4th sending you largely-incoherent GPT sludge, before dropping off the face of the earth until 11:30PM on the night the assignment's due.
I've seen it said college is supposed to teach you the skills to navigate working with others moreso than your specific field of study. Glad to see they've still got it.
One of the realisations I've had recently is that the AI hype feels like another level from what's come before because AI itself is creating the "hype" content fed to me (and my bosses and colleagues) all over social media.
The FOMO tech people are having with AI is out of control - everyone assumes that everyone else is having way more success with it than they are.
I used AI to summarize this whole article and give me takeaways - it already saved me like 0.5h of reading something that in the end I would disagree with since the article is IMHO to harsh on AI.
I found AI extremely useful and easy sell for me to spend $20/m even if not used professionally for coding and I'm the person who avoid any type of subscription as a plague.
Even in educational setting that this article mostly focus about it can be super useful. Not everyone has access to mentors and scholars. I saved a lot of time helping family with typical tech questions and troubleshooting by teaching them how to use it and trying to solve their tech problem themselves.
Readit News
The difference, it seems, is that I’ve been looking at these tools and thinking how I can use them in creative ways to accomplish a goal - and not just treating it like a magic button that solves all problems without fine-tuning.
To give you a few examples:
- There is something called the Picture Superiority Effect, which states that humans remember images better than merely words. I have been interested in applying this to language learning – imagine a unique image for each word you’re learning in German, for example. A few years ago I was about to hire an illustrator to make these images for me, but now with Midjourney or other image creators, I can functionally make unlimited unique images for $30 a month. This is a massive new development that wasn’t possible before.
- I have been working on a list of AI tools that would be useful for “thinking” or analyzing a piece of writing. Things like: analyze the assumptions in this piece; find related concepts with genealogical links; check if this idea is original or not; rephrase this argument as a series of Socratic dialogues. And so on. This kind of thing has been immensely helpful in evaluating my own personal essays and ideas, and prior to AI tools it, again, was not really possible unless I hired someone to critique my work.
The key for both of these example use cases is that I have absolutely no expectation of perfection. I don’t expect the AI images or text to be free of errors. The point is to use them as messy, creative tools that open up possibilities and unconsidered angles, not to do all the work for you.
Either that or different people have different views on life, tech, &c. If you're not going through life as some sort of minmax rpg not using LLM to "optimise" every single aspects of your life is perfectly fine. I don't need a LLM to summarise an article, I want to read it during my 15 min coffee time in the morning. I don't need an LLM to tell me how my text should be rewritten to look like the statistical average of a good text...
> Either that or different people have different views on life, tech, &c.
Most definitely. When stable diffusion came out, I recall AI enthusiasts gushing and saying things like it was "creating the most beautiful art they've ever seen," which just made me scratch my head and wonder what they were smoking.
> If you're not going through life as some sort of minmax rpg not using LLM to "optimise" every single aspects of your life is perfectly fine. I don't need a LLM to summarise an article, I want to read it during my 15 min coffee time in the morning.
Exactly. Some people want to actually understand stuff, in their own minds, and some people seem to be fine teetering on top of an output machine they don't really understand.
On that summarization thing specifically, pre-LLM there were services that did that (my manager subscribed me to one once), and it never clicked with me. Why would I waste my time consuming such shallow stuff? I never felt it had any impact, it felt like fluff to make it feel like you were learning something when you weren't. Which is ironic, because the people who seem enthusiastic about that stuff are under the false impression that everything is like three bullet points wrapped in fluff.
> I don't need an LLM to tell me how my text should be rewritten to look like the statistical average of a good text...
Especially since I roll my eyes at ChatGPT-ese.
It was written after the author attended a workshop where the presenter tried and seemingly failed to show how AI was able to write essays when prompted with the word "innovative" or produce a podcast on a book. The author also mentions an article by a university lecturer who claims that "Human interaction is not as important to today’s students" and that AI will basically replace it.
The subtitle of the article is "AI cannot save us from the effort of learning to live and die."
In other words, the article is about a specific trend in higher education to present AI as some sort of revolutionary tool that will completely change the way students learn.
The author disagrees and contends that pretending to replace most human interactions with genAI is a gimmick, and pretending that AI can make learning effortless is lying to students.
The way you use AI for learning language is certainly imaginative but you are not claiming that it replaces the quality of interacting with native speakers or possibly immersion in the culture. Your tool may be useful and clever but claiming it makes learning language effortless (as some AI apologists in education might) would make it a gimmick.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of this article. Are you basing that just on the title, or do you fundamentally disagree with the author here?
> We call something a gimmick, the literary scholar Sianne Ngai points out, when it seems to be simultaneously working too hard and not hard enough. It appears both to save labor and to inflate it, like a fanciful Rube Goldberg device that allows you to sharpen a pencil merely by raising the sash on a window, which only initiates a chain of causation involving strings, pulleys, weights, levers, fire, flora, and fauna, including an opossum. The apparatus of a large language model really is remarkable. It takes in billions of pages of writing and figures out the configuration of words that will delight me just enough to feed it another prompt. There’s nothing else like it.
In my own experience, that is absolute nonsense, and I have gotten immense amounts of value from it. 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.
AI receives so much funding and support from the wealthy because they believe that they can use it to replace humans and reduce labor costs. I strongly suspect that AI being available to us at all is merely a plot to get us to train and troubleshoot the tech for them so it can more perfectly imitate us. Then, eventually, when the tech is "good enough" it will rapidly become too expensive for normal people to use and thus become inaccessible.
Companies are already mass-firing their staff in favor of AI agents even though those agents don't even do a good job. Imagine how it will be when they do.
The one area I would agree that AI and ML tools have been surprisingly good, art generation.
But then, I see the flood of AI generated pictures and overall, feel it has made a already troublesome world, even more troublesome. I am starting to see the "the picture is AI made, or AI modified" excuses coming into mainstream.
A picture now, has lost all meaning.
> be useful for “thinking” or analyzing a piece of writing
This, I am highly skeptical of. If you train an LLM with words of "trains can fly", then it spits that out. They may be good as summarizing or search tools, but to claim them to be "thinking" and "analyzing", nah.
And I meant myself thinking and analyzing a piece of writing with the help of ChatGPT, not ChatGPT itself “thinking.” (Although I frankly think this is somewhat of an irrelevant point, if the machine is thinking.) Because I have absolutely gained tons of new insights and knowledge by asking ChatGPT to analyze an idea and suggest similar concepts.
Case in point, a PIAAC report back in 2013 said that only 9% of the US adults were considered proficient in math and complex reasoning. And the questions used by PIAAC were arguably just high-school level. Anecdotally, how many people have heard their professors or high-school teachers complain that most students couldn't even really grasp linear equations or distributed property (students can remember rules and pass high-school test, but many of them would be hopeless if they were to pass national entrance exams in other countries).
We’re going to see similar emotional outbursts in the future. Probably going to need new strategies to convince people why they are wrong. Even harder when the parrot says they’re actually right.
This isn't to say that the technology can't be useful, but that the hype around it is exhausting. This bubble is much bigger than the dot-com one, and the effects when it bursts will be far worse.
This swiss army knife is totally useless!
I mean sure, from a purely profit oriented point of view it's good but you need to realize the human being replaced isn't feeling too good about it. Especially when the AI works because it has used input from works of people like him.
The people possessing the capital for AI are pretty happy about the results for sure but they need to think about sharing the wealth created because otherwise this is just an unfair transfer of value to an already rich and powerful small group of people.
In my situation there were no humans being replaced, because I didn’t have the budget to spend thousands of dollars hiring illustrators to make images or academics to review my writing. No one lost work because of AI, but I was able to create new value by using AI. That’s pretty much the pattern of every new technology, from photography replacing portrait painters to widespread literacy replacing letter writers.
Maybe one could make the argument that across the economy as a whole, some jobs are being replaced by AI. Which is indeed true - however, my point was about using these tools for creative individual purposes.
You didn't need AI for the things you list, and using AI has lowered the credibility and quality of your work.
I don't use any AI in my work. Which makes my work worth scanning by AI-- but not yours.
It's so easy to spin up an example "write me a sample chat app" or whatever and be amazed how quickly and fully it realizes this idea, but it does kinda beg the question, now what?
I think in the same way that image generation is akin to clipart (wildly useful, but lacking in depth and meaning) the AI code generation projects are akin to webpage templates. They can help get you started, and take you further than you could on your own, but ultimately you have to decide "now what" after you take that first (AI) step.
Which we already had, it's just a 'git clone https://github.com/whatevs/huh' away, or doing one of millions of tutorials on whatever topic. Pretty much everyone who can build something out of Elixir/Phoenix has a chat app, an e-commerce store and a scraping platform just laying around.
Seriously, I understand saying something lime this about crypto or whatever meme of the day, but even current LLMs are literal magic. Instead of reading 10 pages of empty water and wasting my time, ChatGPT can summarize this as
> Malesic argues that AI hype—especially in education—is a shallow gimmick: it overpromises revolutionary change but delivers banal, low-value outputs. True teaching thrives on slow, sacrificial human labor and deep discussion, which no AI shortcut can replicate.
Hardly any revolutionary thought.
https://futurism.com/ai-chatbots-summarizing-research
Try again with any SOTA reasoning model (GPT-o3, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok 3).
Out of curiosity, I used ChatGPT to make a summary of “FreeBSD vs Linux comparison”, and if came out as extremely fair and to the point, in my opinion.
https://www.today.com/money/are-smartphones-making-us-lazy-t...
Etc., etc.
Definitely worth investing billions and wasting insane amount of energy... idk how people merge the "this is a revolution!" and "it kinda summed up a 10 pages pdf that I couldn't bother to read in the first place" without noticing the insane amount of mental gymnastic you have to go through to reconcile these two ideas.
Not even mentioning the millions of new LLM generated pages that are now polluting the web
yes because before 2022 the internet was a pristine landscape, unmarred by trash and nonsense.
look in all seriousness there are valid critiques of LLMs/AI (environmental, excessive short term optimism, intentional and unintentional misuse).
but pretending that this isn't a revolutionary change is profoundly blind. 'AI' can't do everything CIOs would like to promise their CEOs it can do, and it certainly can't do everything that non-IT executives think it might be able to do, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is already capable of saving MASSIVE amounts of time in multiple areas, some of the best of these are:
* Research
* Editing
* Translation
* Code generation
All of these require the user to not turn off their brain (which is a real risk with LLMs) to properly use AI, but assuming you are capable of using your brain they can save a great deal of time.
If this is not a miracle, then only true AGI is.
For simple coding questions it is also very good because it takes your current context into account. It is basically a smarter "copy paste from stack overflow".
At least for now LLMs do not replace any meaningful work for me, but they replace google more and more.
Goodness that's depressing. Is this going to crank individualism up to 11?
I remember hating having to do group projects in school. Most often, 3/5 of the group would contribute jack shit, while the remaining people had to pick up the slack. But even with lazy gits, the interactions were what made it valuable.
Maybe human/-I cooperation is an important skill for people to learn, but it shouldn't come at the cost of losing even more human-human cooperation and interaction.
Never fear, nowadays 3/5 do squat with the 4th sending you largely-incoherent GPT sludge, before dropping off the face of the earth until 11:30PM on the night the assignment's due.
I've seen it said college is supposed to teach you the skills to navigate working with others moreso than your specific field of study. Glad to see they've still got it.
The FOMO tech people are having with AI is out of control - everyone assumes that everyone else is having way more success with it than they are.
I found AI extremely useful and easy sell for me to spend $20/m even if not used professionally for coding and I'm the person who avoid any type of subscription as a plague.
Even in educational setting that this article mostly focus about it can be super useful. Not everyone has access to mentors and scholars. I saved a lot of time helping family with typical tech questions and troubleshooting by teaching them how to use it and trying to solve their tech problem themselves.
ChatGPT has allowed me to write 50%+ faster with 50%+ better quality. It’s been one of the largest productivity boosts in the last 10+ years.