Applying LLMs or AI to our schedules isn't an unreasonable idea. If it could improve our own productivity even just slightly, I would consider that a win. It would be democratizing the effects of value add from traditional assistants to everyone.

I think good ideas sometimes come from connecting two concepts that seem unrelated, and we shouldn't really silence any of these ideas.

Hey there. That reply doesn't seem to vibe with how HN works.

Whilst that's true regards the word of the law in terms of HN guidelines, it's arguably not in the spirit, which is "curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest". In that light, LLM / GPT solutionism is rapidly converging with blockchain / bitcoin / NFT as exceedingly stale and not conducive to productive discussion.

That's not to say that there's nothing meriting discussion on these topics. But noting that X is "a problem that LLM could help with" ... without detailing the specific advantage over alternatives ... isn't especially enlightening.

If anything, the HN guidelines need to be updated to discourage "AI use case-bro" comments.

I think you might be in the wrong place. You're annoyed that people are discussing a 6-month old promising technology on _hacker_ news?

Its a thread titled "List one task, do it, cross it out"

The words LLM, AI, Sam Altman or OpenAI appear nowhere. I don't mind hypebros discussing LLMs somewhere meant for it. I hate that they do it every bloody where. It's like the crypto bros from a few years ago. "Uhhhh, this would be a great candidate for blockchain bro".

Indeed I am. It's not an AI topic, so a comment of the "use an LLM for this" variety is no more enlightening than a "here's how blockchain can help" comment on a non-blockchain topic was 5 years ago.