> Which one wins?
We don't really know yet, that's my point. There are contradictory studies on the topic. See for instance [1] that sees productivity decrease when AI is used. Other studies show the opposite. We are also seeing the first wave of blog posts from developers abandoning the LLMs.
What's more, most people are not masters. This is critically important. If only masters see a productivity increase, others should not use it... and will still get employed because the masters won't fill in all the positions. In this hypothetical world, masters not using LLMs also have a place by construction.
> With as much capital as is going into
Yes, we are in a bubble. And some are predicting it will burst.
> the continued innovation
That's what I'm not seeing. We are seeing small but very costly improvements on a paradigm that I consider fundamentally flawed for the tasks we are using it for. LLMs still cannot reason, and that's IMHO a major limitation.
> you're going to hang your hat on the possibility that LLMs are going to be only available in a 'limited or degraded' state?
I didn't say I was going to, but since you are asking: oh yes, I'm not putting my eggs in a box that could abruptly disappear or become very costly.
I simply don't see how this thing is going to be cost efficient. The major SaaS LLM providers can't seem to manage profitability, and maybe at some point the investors will get bored and stop sending billions of dollars towards them? I'll reconsider when and if LLMs become economically viable.
But that's not my strongest reason to avoid the LLMs anyway:
- I don't want to increase my reliance on SaaS (or very costly hardware)
- I have not caved in yet in participating in this environmental disaster, and in this work pillaging phenomenon (well, that last part, I guess I don't really have a choice, I see the dumb AI bots hammering my forgejo instance).
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016649722...
