Depends on what job it’s replacing. LLMs are so-called narrow intelligence. They’re built to generate natural-sounding language, so if that’s what the job requires, then even an imperfect LLM might be fit for it. But if the job demands logic, reasoning, and grounding in facts, then it’s the wrong tool. If it were an imperfect AGI that can also talk, maybe - but it’s not.

My unpopular opinion is that LLMs are actually too good. We just wanted something that talks, but by training it on tons of correct information, they also end up answering questions correctly as a by-product. That’s neat, but it happens “by accident” - not because they actually know anything.

It’s kind of like a humanoid robot that looks too much like a person - we struggle to tell the difference. We forget what it really is because of what it seems.

What do you mean they don’t give you a choice? You always have the choice not to use it. DDG gives me AI summaries and I never read them. WhatsApp has an LLM button I’ve never pressed. Twitter has Grok, never tried it. Android probably has Gemini somewhere, and I don’t even know how to access it. As for Proton’s LLM, I hadn’t even heard of it despite paying for their email for a decade. I just don’t see how something existing as a feature in a service I already use somehow mandates me to engage with it.

If someone is so deeply anti-LLM that they want to avoid all this on principle, I don’t necessarily have an issue with that. But personally, I genuinely struggle to grasp the logic behind it. People seem to have a strong emotional response to LLMs - your reply makes that pretty clear - and that’s the part that really boggles my mind.

If you don’t like LLMs then why can’t you just not use them? Why do you have to start avoiding everything LLM like the plague?

It’s called a rage bait - and it’s working.

True! Then instead of spilling my coffee on the counter I could spill it on the counter instead.

The best coffee I’ve ever drank was from Aeropress but honestly, if you use freshly ground beans on a Moccamaster they’re quite difficult to tell apart.

It’s not to protect it from cracking - it’s to stop the leftover coffee from burning onto it, since I only rinse it after use.

I don’t waste good coffee.

It’s intentional. Leaves an air gap between the pot and the hotplate.

When I make coffee just for myself, I always measure out the same amount of water and this never happens. But my SO is slightly less autistic about it than I am and makes inconsistent amounts when brewing for the two of us - and I just can’t stand the thought of pouring even a drop of coffee down the drain. So, I spill it on the table and floor instead.

I live in a small granny cottage and “my desk” means the kitchen table 2.5 meters away. I technically could move it to my desk and it would still remain in the kitchen.

Or maybe I just need to start drinking straight from the jug.

Moccamaster is relatively popular brand where I live. Most people know about it. It always boggles my mind when I see a middle class family with a 35€ coffee maker. Why cheap out on something you’re using multiple times a day for the rest of your life? These things are not that expensive and spare parts are widely available.

My word filters reliably block 3rd of my front page here. Includes every keyword seen here and much more.

Way to move the goalposts.

If you take that question seriously for a second - AlphaFold doesn’t spew chemicals or drain lakes. It’s a piece of software that runs on GPUs in a data center. The environmental cost is just the electricity it uses during training and prediction.

Now compare that to the way protein structures were solved before: years of wet lab work with X‑ray crystallography or cryo‑EM, running giant instruments, burning through reagents, and literally consuming tons of chemicals and water in the process. AlphaFold collapses that into a few megawatt‑hours of compute and spits out a 3D structure in hours instead of years.

So if the concern is environmental footprint, the AI way is dramatically cleaner than the old human‑only way.

Artificial intelligence isn’t designed to maximize human fulfillment. It’s built to minimize human suffering.

What it cannot do is answer the fundamental questions that have always defined human existence: Who am I? Why am I here? What should I do with my finite time on Earth?

Expecting machines to resolve existential questions is like expecting a calculator to write poetry. We’re demanding the wrong function from the right tool.

Pretty weird statements. There’s no such thing as just “AI” - they should be more specific. LLMs aren’t designed to maximize human fulfillment or minimize suffering. They’re designed to generate natural-sounding language. If they’re talking about AGI, then that’s not designed for any one thing - it’s designed for everything.

Comparing AGI to a calculator makes no sense. A calculator is built for a single, narrow task. AGI, by definition, can adapt to any task. If a question has an answer, an AGI has a far better chance of figuring it out than a human - and I’d argue that’s true even if the AGI itself isn’t conscious.

It won’t solve anything

Go tell that to AlphaFold which solved a decades‑old problem in biology by predicting protein structures with near lab‑level accuracy.