Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

  • Hacker News
  • 69 pages long.
  • nice
  • The main text is only 23 pages double-spaced. The remaining manuscript comprises images, tables, and references. It's not that long really.
  • I think you're supposed to use AI to digest it
  • Question: "How"

    Answer: Yes.

  • Answer: differently and increasingly
  • Interesting data, but I think there's a pretty big trap in treating usage intensity as a proxy for economic impact. The finding that early-career workers send substantially more messages than senior people could mean they're getting huge productivity gains. It could also mean they're the ones doing the work that's easiest to delegate to ChatGPT…
  • Conclusion: no measureable ROI. In fact, the enterprises have no idea where or how to begin measuring (we don't either tbh). We are still early. Keep buying our product, so we can find out, together.
  • What is difficult about measuring RoI? Time scales?
  • They draw a random sample of matched adopters but use the full Compustat population of US companies as non-adopters and don't disclose the sampling rate, which is statistically risky.

    Also doesn't account for pilots. If a Enterprise customer has 10 licenses for a pilot, they could be in there.

  • This reads like some crypto or NFT commodity white paper, i.e. like an ad that says you need to use this now, and more, so that you'll figure out what it's good for.

    A difference is that in those white papers they usually argue that their solution is more perfect in some sense than some more adopted alternative, here they instead claim that their commercial offering is "general purpose".

  • I get the ad-like vibe, but I think that's slightly unfair to the paper. "General purpose technology" is being used as an economics term here, not as a claim that ChatGPT is universally useful
  • "badly". There, fixed it for you.

    Seriously, the best blog post on this subject has to be Ludicity: https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/ai-mania-is-eviscerating-glo...

  • It feels like Im in a different world than this author. Cluade code is now more reliable and trustworthy than most of my coworkers but this author hasnt seen a single AI initiative succeed? Seems like theyre just being obtuse because the only other explanation I can think of is user error.
  • Thanks for the article! Too opinionated imp, but an interesting read.
  • Purely anecdotally, over the last few weeks I've noticed a significant uptick in articles trying to convince me how awesome AI is doing. And that's from a pretty high baseline of articles that were already telling me how I should really appreciate how awesome AI is.

    It's almost as though there's some worry that the wheels are going to come off before the right people are able to cash out.

  • Would it kill these OpenAI guys to learn how to write a white paper? Google's DeepMind did better with their AGI to ASI, though I have qualms on their execution.

    Whenever I see these Frontier Labs "publish a paper" on ArXiv.org the phrase Esse Quam Videri strides past my mind—is this genuine progress or merely a marketing metric for their stakeholders?

    by mjg2
  • This is a typical working paper (preprint) not white paper, for its field. You can wait for the journal publication.
  • you are complaining about a problem with this paper without explaining what it is.
  • I didn't scour the text but one thing I didn't see as an explanatory consideration in the paper is that the larger companies they talk about having larger adoption are also much more likely to have reasonably robust controls (and consequences) that prevent mixing personal/corporate use of AI tooling. That's my world.

    On the other hand my girlfriend is a teacher and for the past year ChatGPT has allowed her to augment her lesson plans with slides/games/etc that have had a very positive effect on student engagement. She also uses it to help with analysis of testing data against her lesson plans and state standards to find places to shore things up as the year progresses. She runs the english language learning department in her school and also uses it to help ensure that there is representation in her materials for the huge mix of cultural backgrounds of her students.

    It's truly helped her immensely and it's all been on her personal account. The district has no program or budget to guide or support teachers and admin on using these tools in education.

  • I think a majority of my friends are teachers and this could not be further opposite their sentiments. They feel strongly that it’s dishonest, nearly akin to plagiarism to use AI output in lesson plans. They don’t use it for grading or data analysis b/c of privacy concerns. They mostly complain that the kids are using it for homework, which makes it hard to grade both because it’s too uniform and because there’s no good faith effort going into the work which makes reading it unrewarding. And the consensus is that test scores are down b/c they’re offloading normal course work to AI. It’s basically the bane of their existence.

    The idea that it’s actually better for diversity feels like a wild reach, almost a canned talking point.

  • >She also uses it to help with analysis of testing data

    >on her personal account

    With all the PII stripped, I hope?

  • Is your girlfriend secondary or primary, if you don't mind? Our secondary programs in the region have a lot of AI vendor and software money flowing into them yet like you I see them (the teachers, not the AI) crafting lesson plans and assorted work with free institutional accounts for these products or personal ones. The vendors seem focused on student acts; for the teachers, there's a lot of "say your lecture into this tool and it will provide feedback on your performance" type of thing, which seems specialized.
  • > my girlfriend is a teacher and for the past year ChatGPT has allowed her to augment her lesson plans with slides/games/etc that have had a very positive effect on student engagement.

    My wife, who is also a teacher, does the same thing. I think this is an underrated use of AI right now. There's also been a new wave of edtech companies focusing on AI as the teacher, which I'm skeptical will reach product market fit. I think AI as the teacher assistant could be interesting though.

  • Such a shame.

    Schools for the poorer segments of society keep adding more and more technology, eroding the analytical skills of their students and staff. But the shiny things keep the poorer parents and mediocre teachers happy while keeping down cost per lesson per child. This keeps the administrators happy.

    Meanwhile ultra-expensive elite private schools for the children of the Zuckerbergs, Al Sauds, Al Nahyans, where the teachers are Ivy and Oxbridge graduates emphasise tradition, classical studies and analytical skills while relegating technology to a minor role

    As always the children of the rich and powerful get bespoke education... You could call it elegant education for a more civilized age...