> 100M growth in two months suggests literally every single human being on Earth would benefit from using this all the time, and it’s just a matter of enabling them to.
This doesn’t make any sense. Popular is not the same as useful. You’d have a more compelling argument if you included data showing that all this increased LLM usage has had some kind of impact on productivity metrics.
Instead, some studies have shown that LLMs are making professionals less productive:
>This doesn’t make any sense. Popular is not the same as useful.
If you are using a service weekly for a long period, you find it useful.
>You’d have a more compelling argument if you included data showing that all this increased LLM usage has had some kind of impact on productivity metrics.
Why would you need to do that? Why is a vague (in this instance) notion of 'productivity' the only measure of usefulness? ChatGPT (not the API, just the app) processes over 2.6 B messages every single day. Most of these (1.9B) are for Non work purposes. So what 'productivity' would you even be measuring here ? Do you think everything that doesn't have to do with work is useless ? I hope not, because you'd be wrong.
If something makes you laugh consistently, it's useful. If it makes you happy, it's useful. 'Productivity' is not even close to being the be-all and end-all of usefulness.
This is free users though. The number of paid users is significantly less (like any other freemium product). Finding it useful enough to use weekly doesn't mean finding it useful enough to pay continuously for use.
Free users can still be monetized or else Google Search would be a money loser. Open AI's free users are at the moment not monetized in any way. It's clear they plan to change this, given recent hirings and the value they'd need to extract from their free active userbase to be profitable is pretty low, so it's not really a problem.
> If you are using a service weekly for a long period, you find it useful.
Do alcoholics find their daily usage of alcohol really useful? You can of course make a case for this, but it's quite a stretch. I think people use stuff weekly for all sorts of reasons besides usefulness for the most common interpretation of the word.
> Do alcoholics find their daily usage of alcohol really useful?
Of course they do. They use it to get drunk and to avoid withdrawals. You're trying to confuse useful with productive. Being productive does make a difference, though, because if something isn't productive it doesn't generate enough cash to buy more of it - you have to pull the cash from somewhere else.
So I think your feeling is correct, although your argument is wrong. Buying gas for your car is productive, because it gets you to work which gets you money to pay for more gas and other things (like alcohol.) Buying alcohol is not productive, and that means that people can't pay too much for it.
Exactly, for how many people is Instagram/TikTok and friends actually useful? Sure, they're popular and also used by billions, but would every human on earth benefit from using those services?
This doesn’t make any sense. Popular is not the same as useful. You’d have a more compelling argument if you included data showing that all this increased LLM usage has had some kind of impact on productivity metrics.
Instead, some studies have shown that LLMs are making professionals less productive:
https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...