I think this is true for both ChatGPT and AI art. People use them the same way they would Google, get an output that’s mediocre, and write the entire thing off. There was a similar reaction when people were being shown the web decades ago.

But when you start playing with these things, finding out where they’re useful, and how to make use of them, they can do very impressive things.

> I don't know I'm really confused about how some people think it's so worthless.

Maybe because either they believe that ChatGPT is worthless, or they have to deal with the fact that their knowledge is becoming worthless (or, at least, worth less).

I can tell you why I dislike ChatGPT, it's because it's not trustworthy. Somebody that is not well versed in the subject cannot distinguish the hallucinations of the machine, and for somebody that is well versed, they are better served by a rubber duck that doesn't lead them astray

Except there’s an entire thread of people saying it’s useful. No one is trusting it implicitly, but I work with a bunch of folks that are pretty good at what they do but aren’t infallible and I do have to verify a lot of what they do and say. I don’t dislike them for it, they’re human. Why when it’s a machine that’s largely accurate but sometimes hallucinates it’s a perceived failure, while these folks I work with keep getting promoted and praised for their sometimes untrustworthy work?

Because we (or perhaps I) apply different standards to different situations - a bad car driver that causes accidents are accepted as facts of life, whereas a computer driven car is expected to be far safer and have no fatalities.

Personally I find it useless to see a machine as a colleague when it is not better in any way then a colleague, in the same way I don't see a hammer as a very punchy workmate. If I want to have a conversation about something I'll go talk to a human, when I interrogate a database I expect it to be better then a random human.

From either side there is a lot of belief with just minor real experience to fully judge. For me it saves tons of coding time. Together with copilot i am twice as productive. At least.

as someone no longer in industry, I'm curious how this has affected the economics? if you're twice as effective, are jobs being cut? are you working fewer hours? are you accomplishing twice as much?

> I suspect it's just a bias we have, most people aren't doing or creating anything, they aren't solving problems or learning new things constantly like engineers do, so chatgpt feels useless to them.

> Or perhaps the problems we want to talk or learn about are just easier for an ai to answer than the things they want out of it

I think the ABOVE two lines captures the real CORE of why they are two big groups of ChatGPT : supporters and haters

For technical people who are in coding, we may spend 20 minutes with many suggestions to get the final correct code. We test the code and Check-in into github and we EARNED a part of LIVING for that day (as employee).

Now take non-technical person, he is writing an article. He may spend one hour giving various suggestions to complete the article. At the end the article is OK, but not the best. He can not send it to some magazine or news paper, because it is not THE BEST. So in order have an article to have it accepted, he needs to have his ORIGINAL thinking. So in that sense ChatGPT is not SO helpful for him, for that one hour spent he feel ChatGPT is a Conman.

The point I am trying to make: for ChatGPT to be useful for a Technical person with a piece of code, ChatGPT does not have to be ORIGINAL thinker and produce the BEST, it can be average and It has existing template( previous code which workd), all it need to figure out is how to get to that existing solution.

I gave my ABOVE answer text to ChatGPT and asked to refine my idea, this is what it produced. -------

There are two distinct groups of opinions regarding the usefulness of ChatGPT: supporters and detractors. These differing perspectives stem from the varying needs and expectations of individuals in different professions.

For technical individuals, such as coders, the process of finding the correct solution to a problem can take a considerable amount of time. ChatGPT can be extremely helpful in streamlining this process by suggesting code snippets that have worked in the past, reducing the time spent on trial and error. In this sense, ChatGPT does not have to be an original thinker or produce the absolute best solution, as long as it helps the coder to reach a workable solution efficiently.

However, for non-technical individuals, such as writers, the focus is often on originality and creativity. ChatGPT may not be as helpful in this context because it is limited to suggesting based on pre-existing templates and previous examples. A writer who spends an hour relying on ChatGPT's suggestions may not end up with the best possible article, which could result in a feeling of dissatisfaction. In this scenario, the writer may feel that ChatGPT is not truly helping them to reach their full potential, leading them to view it as a hindrance rather than a help.

In conclusion, the usefulness of ChatGPT is dependent on the individual's specific needs and expectations. For those in technical fields, it can be a valuable tool, while for those in more creative professions, its limitations may outweigh its benefits.

It dosent goes against what you said but chatGPT is also usefull in nontechical domains

I asked it if it could help with my anxiety regarding to my first therapy session it gave me an actionable 6 steps plan to help me reduce my anxiety by actively preparing for that dreaded first session. Not only I am less stressed about that session but I am also a lot more prepared and likely to benefit from it.

If it was available purely offline I would probably replace the therapy with chatGPT entirely, but I dont trust the great AI in the cloud, it whit something I would not share in a forum so no robot psychotherapist for me, not yet at least ...

Probably more dependent on the quality required than the domain. GPT code to check into simple CRUD app X? Sure. GPT code to augment the Linux kernel? Maybe not.