Obviously disagree, but I think those that claim great utility have to provide real cases where it's likely to make a difference. Software, for example, comes up a lot and it's something I know a lot about and I find the claim almost laughable.
Obviously disagree, but I think those that claim great utility have to provide real cases where it's likely to make a difference. Software, for example, comes up a lot and it's something I know a lot about and I find the claim almost laughable.
It will probably take years or even a few decades to settle this, as with past technological innovations. Just speaking for myself as a social scientist, I use it in a professional context and it’s increased the range of things I can do
With or without the "increased range", I would think the economic value of your work would be the same -- no change in GDP, right? But people need to document details and, generally speaking, they're lacking. Until there are details, I'm going to remain very skeptical.