I think what people mean by everyone varies a lot, which is why I wanted to draw attention to more specific numbers. For example, in the Datos data cited[1], on desktop 86% were using traditional search engines >10 visits/month vs. only 21% for AI chat tools. That is indeed a very significant percentage, but more than 4x less than search and (at least I) wouldn't say that ~1/5 is "everyone."

[1] https://sparktoro.com/blog/new-research-20-of-americans-use-...

The numbers are interesting, I agree, as is the overall post.

And as a clickbait headline, "not everyone" makes sense.

But, realistically, the NYT obviously isn't talking about, say, the North Sentinelese islanders. Similarly, it's probably not really talking about people who don't do the kind of white collar work where AI is, so far, most prevalent.

In fact, the group the NYT is most likely referring to as "everyone" is really "readers of the NYT". It might be hard to come up with numbers for that, but I suspect they'd be a lot higher.

Anecdotally, at the company I'm at (late-stage venture-backed), everyone from software developers to people on the marketing, sales, and finance side are using AI. And we're not unique. This will make the statement ring true to many people, even if it's not globally true in an absolute sense.

This all makes more sense once you've truly internalized the Yogi Berra quote about a certain popular restaurant: "No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

yeah exactly my thoughts. everyone didn't mean literally everyone.

and for the ones that are using it (especially the paid subs). the lure is undeniable.

Kinda like how quickly cellphones popped up and changed everything.