> No one seems to be able to grasp the possibility that AI is a failure.

Do you think by the time GPT-9 comes, we'll say "That's it, AI is a failure, we'll just stop using it!"

Or do you speak in metaphorical/bigger picture/"butlerian jihad" terms?

I don't see the use-case now, maybe there will be one by GPT-9

Absence of your need isn't evidence of no need.

This is true, but I've never heard of a use case. To which you might reply, "doesn't mean there isn't one," which you would be also right about.

Maybe you know one.

I presume your definition of use case is something that doesn't include what people normally use it for. And I presume me using it for coding every day is disqualified as well.

I didn't mean to suggest it has no utility at all. That's obviously wrong (same for crypto). I meant a use case in line with the projections the companies have claimed (multiple trillions). Help with basic coding (of which efficiency gains are still speculative) is not a multi-trillion dollar business.

You've failed to figure out when and how to use it. It's not a binary failed/succeeded thing.

None of the copyright issues or suicide cases are handled in the court yet. There are many aspects.

Metaverse was...

“There’s no use for this thing!” - said the farmer about the computer