> We're collectively discovering that it was about the process too, not just results.

Being able to judge the reliability of the source was huge. AI is a great discovery engine, but a terrible source for reliable information.

And, note, that perhaps - even more of those social interactions will also be absorbed, along with the participants, into the Chat model's sphere. It wants, and will get, all: Result(s), process, and participants. It is grey goo for all intellectual - and soon, emotional - work and products and inputs and byproducts.-

Being useful and being good for us is not the same thing. I don't think I've heard many people say LLMs don't do what they are supposed to do.

> We're collectively discovering that it was about the process too, not just results.

We. I remember five years ago in the old manual days. When the 10Xers would culturally gatekeep programming based on whether people intrinsically liked coding itself. I.e. the process.

Then there was a curious shift. Several elites had a realization: oh it was never about the process for me. I just like getting the results. (In however an alienating way.) "I'm pragmatic"

> I'm not questioning if AI delivers, it does, and you need - cannot say it more politely - a reality check if you think it's completely useless.

Why fret. The doubters will be washed away by the flood anyway. I’m completely serious. Either if or when, it’s not like anyone can stay a doubter on a computer if (if or when) everything is transformed.

I can never understand these faith rituals. First declare that you are a believer. Then declare that the doubters are delusional. Politely.

But delusion is a reality-correcting problem, except for the clinically ill.