That's not accurate at all for me. I'm not impressed with the output when rating it against humans who are good at said task. It's obviously not as good as those who are good in that relevant field.

But it's certainly far better than humans who are not skilled at those tasks, and that is what I find to be very impressive. I just didn't realise that these models could be this good, and they're not even as good as they will be.

I guess if you were expecting something that's going to be as good as those who are skilled in a particular field, you'll be unimpressed -- but I wasn't even expecting mediocrity.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. I'm not underwhelmed by it being not as good as good humans at [task]; that's not a surprise.

I'm saying that most people I see who are impressed by it for any given task are people who are not well-equipped to judge performance on that task.

I'm impressed by the talking dog because it's a dog that can talk, not because I think it's a great orator.

I trust that you're familiar enough with dogs to tell barking apart from talking.

Many people are blown away by GPT for the leverage it provides, not because it makes the impossible possible.

Programming is generally not hard. Producing 5x - 10x as much programming output at the same quality is quite hard. And keeping the most interesting 10% for yourself while offloading the 90% that is basically just typing? That’s what people are excited about.