See, I got that answer a lot with VR. And like you, they never asked whether I had used it, generally assuming that the only possible way I could be skeptical is through ignorance.

But as with both of those and plenty of other novel technology, whether or not I like it doesn't answer most of my questions, which are about what other people will use things for. E.g., I did not like YouTube, but I am just not a video person. So me using YouTube and saying "meh" wasn't informative, because I wasn't the target audience. Similarly, I was wowed by the modern VR experience, but being wowed didn't make me a long-term user, something apparently true for a lot of people.

I know several people that use it to save time composing letters and emails. They can dictated the important bits and let it structure the words. They love it. Its value is probably about right at $20/mo for a tool. It isn’t the greatest thing ever, but it’s useful for language composition. It’s easy to alter the response and build upon it to correct anything that needs adjusting. They don’t use it to give them the universal truth of the world.

I have heard this use case mentioned, and I get why lazy writers might want it. But I'm not seeing yet that it's good for readers. Can it bulk out actual points? Sure. As a reader, do I want the useful bits scattered among a bunch of fluff prose? Definitely not.

And that goes double for anything that is supposed to be meaningful human connection. E.g., after my mom died, I got a number of nice notes of condolence from people. I appreciated them. If any of them had felt machine-generated, that person would be dead to me.

So my general feeling about the composition case is that it is going to vastly enable the generation of documents that are, to one degree or another, bullshit. And I don't think that's a net positive for society. It's not like we had a bullshit shortage previously.

You ask for a real world use case, it saves people time/energy and has value to them. You respond by saying it's bullshit and they're lazy, but the fact is there is a lot of communications like that in the world. Not everything needs to be a Pulitzer prize email that evokes monumental emotions in your soul. Sometimes you just need to convey some simple information in a general format

Sure, but you haven't grappled with the heart of my point, whether this is better for the readers as well.

And this is a straw man:

> Pulitzer prize email that evokes monumental emotions

There's nothing wrong with a plain and simple email. Indeed, I think that's generally better unless the writer finds it worth the time to write something fancier.