“People really do use them for coding, for searching defined libraries of documents, for generating draft materials, for brainstorming, and for summarizing and searching documents. These are useful, but they are not magical.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
LLMs have real but non-magical uses such as coding, document search, drafting, brainstorming and summarization.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it
Where's Your Ed At, There Is No AI Revolution, paragraph 165.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment wyea-wheres-the-money-7cd572-a1
We recorded 42 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2025-02-24. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- People really do use them for coding
- searching defined libraries of documents
- generating draft materials
- brainstorming
- summarizing and searching documents
- These are useful, but they are not magical
Our interpretation
- The plain reading is that these are genuine, useful applications of LLMs, without implying perfect performance or universal adoption.
- Use 2024, the latest completed calendar year before publication, for the ongoing usage observation.
- 'Not magical' is rhetorical emphasis on limitations, not a separate measurable proposition.
- Usefulness means practical assistance with the task, not proven enterprise-wide profitability.
Counts as supported if: User studies or documented deployments establish actual use across the listed categories, with reports or measurements of practical assistance.
Counts as contradicted if: Credible evidence establishes that the asserted applications were not real uses or provided no practical assistance during the target period.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
Contemporaneous surveys document coding assistance, drafting, brainstorming and summarization. Morgan Stanley's deployment documents use of an internal knowledge assistant. Reports of practical assistance support the modest usefulness claim. None of this requires perfect results or proves that all deployments earn a financial return.
Limitations
- Much of the evidence is self-reported or company-disclosed.
- The surveys use the broader term generative AI, although the cited text and coding applications fit the LLM uses described.
- No separate truth value is assigned to 'not magical'.
Evidence (3 items)
Supports the claim: UiPath and Researchscape,
summarizing long-form content (30%)
Why it matters here: The survey of 9,047 workers documents actual reported use in three named categories and also reports time-saving benefits. It establishes existence, not universal effectiveness.
- Publisher
- UiPath and Researchscape
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: HackerRank,
debugging, code review
Why it matters here: The summer 2024 survey records coding assistance, including respondents describing code generation, and reports perceived productivity benefits. This supports practical coding use without treating self-reported gains as controlled estimates.
- Publisher
- HackerRank
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: Morgan Stanley via Business Wire, republished by Silicon UK,
To date, 98% of Financial Advisor teams have adopted the Assistant.
Why it matters here: The surrounding paragraph identifies the adopted assistant as a generative AI chatbot giving advisors access to the firm's internal knowledge. The release also documents meeting summaries and draft communications, supporting bounded retrieval and related practical uses.
- Publisher
- Morgan Stanley via Business Wire, republished by Silicon UK
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Where's Your Ed At, There Is No AI Revolution
People really do use them for coding, for searching defined libraries of documents, for generating draft materials, for brainstorming, and for summarizing and searching documents. These are useful, but they are not magical.
- Where
- paragraph 165
- Published
- 2025-02-24
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment wyea-wheres-the-money-7cd572-a1: Current. Outcome: Supported. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.