Technology

Customer support tier .5

It can be hella great for finding what you need on a big website that is poorly organized, laid out, or just enormous in content. I could see it being incredible for things like irs.gov, your healthcare providers website, etc. in getting the requested content in user hands without them having to familiarize themselves with constantly changing layouts, pages, branding, etc.

To go back to the IRS example, there are websites in the last 5 years that started to have better content library search functionality, but I guess for me having AI able to contextualize the request and then get you what you want specifically would be incredible. "Tax rule for x kind of business in y situation for 2024"---that shit takes hours if you're pretty competent sometimes, and current websites might just say "here is the 2024 tax code PLOP" or "here is an answer that doesn't apply to your situation" etc. "tomato growing tips for zone 3a during drought" on a gardening site, etc.

I'm in HR so benefits are a big one...the absolute mountain of content, even if you understand it, even experts can't have perfect recall and quick, easy answers through a mountain of text seems like an area AI could deliver real value.

That said, companies using AI as an excuse to them eliminate support jobs because customers "have AI" are greedy dipshits as AI and LLMs are a risk at best and outside of a narrow library and intense testing are going to always be more work for the company as you not only have to fix the wrong answer situations but also get the right answer the old fashioned way. You still need humans and hopefully AI can make their work more interesting, nuanced and fulfilling.

I think it's mischaracterising the argument against AI to boil it down to "AI is useless" (and I say that as much as a criticism of those who are critical of genAI as I do of those who want to defend it; far too many people express the argument reductively as "AI is useless" when that's not exactly what's really being meant).

The problem is not that genAI is never useful for anything. It is sometimes useful for some things. The problem is that being sometimes useful for some things does not remotely justify what the technology costs. I mean that both on the macro scale - untold climate damage, vast amounts of wasted resources - and on the micro scale; OpenAI alone loses $2.35 for every $1.00 they make.

That is fundamentally unsustainable. If you like genAI for whatever use cases you've found for it, and you really don't care about the climate toll and other externalities, then you can look forward to paying upwards of $50-$100 a month to actually use it, once we're out of the "Give it to 'em cheap/free to get' em hooked" phase, because that's what it'll take to make these models profitable. In fact that's kind of a lowball estimate.

I know plenty of people who find this tech occasionally useful as a way of searching for the answer to a question or producing a small snippet of code, but I can't imagine anyone who finds those uses so compelling that they'd throw "Canadian cell phone contract" levels of money at it.

I haven't heard any other comments chime in from one of my use cases, so I'll give it a stab. My first use case, I mentioned in another comment which is just adding a specific tone onto emails which I'm bad at doing myself. But my second use case is more controversial and I still don't know how to feel about it. I'm a graphic designer and with most enhancements in design/art technology, if you don't learn what's new, you will fall behind and your usefulness will wane. I've always been very tech savvy and positive about most new tech so I like to stay up to speed both for my job and self interest. So how do I use AI for graphic design? The things I think have the best use case and are least controversial are the AI tools that help you edit photos. In the past, I have spent loads of time editing frizzy curly hair so I can cut out a person. As of a couple years ago, Adobe I touched some tools to make that process easier, and it worked ok but it wasn't a massive time saver. Then they launched the AI assisted version and holy shit it works perfectly every time. Like give me the frizziest hair on a similar color background with texture and it will give you the perfect cutout in a minute tops. That's the kind of shit I want for AI. More tools eliminate tedious processes!! However there is another more controversial use case which is generative AI. I've played with it a lot and the tools work fantastic and get you started with images you can splice together to make what you really envisioned or you can use it to do simple things like seamlessly remove objects or add in a background that didn't exist. I once made a design with an illustrative style by inputting loads of images that fit the part, then vectorizing all the generated options and using pieces from those options to make what I really wanted. I was really proud of it especially since I'm not an illustrator and don't have the skills to illustrate what I envisioned by hand. But that's where things get controversial. I had to input the work of other people to achieve this. At the moment, I can't use anything generative commercially even though Adobe is very nonchalant about it. My company has taken a firm stance on it which is nice, but it means I can really only use that aspect for fun even though it would be very useful in some situations.

TLDR: I use AI to give my writing style the right tone, to save loads of time editing photos, and to create images I don't have the skills to create by hand (only for funzies).

making my tone proper in emails

Expanding photos that are badly cropped or have the wrong orientation. It has saved me hours of compositing or having to look for entirely new photos to use, which I hate.

• Code examples
• taking point form notes and turning into formal paragraphs
• Answering random questions that have static answers and exist in places like Wikipedia

There is one thing I would find genuinely useful that seems within its current capabilities. I’d like to be able to give an AI a summary of my current knowledge on a subject, along with a batch of papers or articles, and have it give me one or more of the following:

• A summary of the papers omitting the stuff I already know

• A summary of any prerequisite background info I don’t already know, but isn’t in the papers

• A summary of all the points on which the papers are in agreement

• A summary of any points where the papers are in contention.

I needed a simple script to combine jpegs into a pdf. I tried to make a python script but it's been years since I've programmed anything and I was intermediate at best. My script was riddled with errors and would not run. I asked chatgpt to write me the script and the second or third attempt worked great. The first two only failed because my prompts were bad, I had never used chatgpt before.

Gpt-4 is really good at solving physics problems (also chemistry, but that needs to be fact-checked more) so I used it to understand how to approach certain problems back when I was taking Physics.

Scripting, both frameworks and finished code with testing and iteration.

More often than not it gives me decent answers for the kind of info I'm searching for. Saves me a lot of time digging through ad layden pages and search results.

I have enough education and skill and talent to not need AI.

Sorry for the rest of you. Not really.

Search is crap these days, so asking an LLM often yields better results. It’s currently a decent search spam filter.