this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
1009 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
88085 readers
4681 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is also just an assertion.
The fact people do something doesn't say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity.
Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower.
Widespread use alone isn't conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you've correctly identified what they've all somehow missed.
Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn't establish that LLMs don't improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse.
I agree. They're far far more often misused than used effectively, however.
Yes, this is obvious for anyone that has eyes and isn't a sycophant.
Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not.
But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly.
I never said they couldn't. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you
My observations have just as much merit as your speculation that somehow companies by default make good decisions. I don't know why you have it stuck in your head that is a valid logical foundation, but you are incorrect.
In any case, you clearly don't have anything else to offer, so I think we're done here. Have a nice day!
Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference.
Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it?