I don't think they're gaining any market share, especially after the Chinese produced nearly identical services.

Have i done surveys, no. Have I seen the percent that subscribe, yes. I can only talk from my experience of my bubble. However, it bears up to the finances and the criticisms I've seen.

People like the idea and like that or can be a time saver for things like writing an email or resume etc. Managers like that it is purported to save money. The reality seems to be that it doesn't, or at least doesn't save much, based on studies.

I know people who love it and use it at work all the time for research with reference to internal info. I know people for whom it's banned and they need to document that ai was not used.

I know parents that use it when doing projects with their kids to save time but they worry that it circumvents the point of the project.

I don't know anyone that subscribes personally. From my perspective, most companies seem to be pushing very hard to get users. If their product was great, they wouldn't need to. There is no network effect like with recem fast spreading tech.

I should have phrases better. People don't like ai enough to pay for it and it's costly to run.

You're right we are in an anti ai bubble ( we all remember THE CLOUDDDDD buzzword companies wouldn't shut the hell up about, and that was an objectively far better service than Ai is) however, I can't name anyone in the company I work for thats had llms revolutionize their job. It helps summarize (badly) and help with excel formulas (does ok if you know what you're doing). Plus, our clients dont pay us to use a shitty half ass llm, they expect actual intelligent humans to do the work correctly.

I also won't buy from any company blatantly using llms in their products. They're good at hiding it. But I will notice.

Do any of them like it enough to pay for it? The figures say no.

I use it daily but I won't subscribe. It's like news. Why pay when you can get it for free. (I do subscribe to news outlets, though, but like ai subscriptions, I know I'm in the minority).

There is a specialised ai tool that is useful at my work. It's got a free tier which does most of the functions and the next tier up is crazy expensive on a per user basis for the amount of time it saves. If there was a reasonable subscription, perhaps I'd subscribe but I assume that a reasonable subscription doesn't cover costs, so they'd rather a free user to pump their numbers than lose a subscriber. That yells me it will enshottify over time or they hope that the cost will drop. The problem is that if the cost to host drops a lot, people will self host instead. It's a rock and a hard place, without a sustainable business model.

Lemmy us pretty much all is use right now. I don't know anyone espousing a. I.

It ain't a social media bubble.

Yes, it does, but at the price needed to make it profitable, it’s not desirable.

LLMs are not useless; they serve a purpose. They just are nowhere near as clever as we expect them to be based on calling them AI. However, body is investing billions for an email writing assistant.

oh yeah this shit's working out GREAT

https://lavocedinewyork.com/en/lifestyles/2025/06/29/when-the-machine-takes-over-the-mind-ais-terrifying-dark-side/

"This is what it must have felt like to be the first person to get addicted to a slot machine. We didn’t know then. But now we do.”

https://archive.is/Tv4Rr

Mr. Moore speculated that chatbots may have learned to engage their users by following the narrative arcs of thrillers, science fiction, movie scripts or other data sets they were trained on. Lawrence’s use of the equivalent of cliffhangers could be the result of OpenAI optimizing ChatGPT for engagement, to keep users coming back.

Yes, but that's not taking over jobs. It's a minor convenience occasionally. That won't justify monthly.pricing they need to turn profitable, not will it have the wide range of applications for.every industry that they hoped for.