To pick one example:
"Rogers proposed a bell curve with five distinct adopter categories: innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%), and laggards (16%). This distribution of adopters remained remarkably consistent, regardless of the particular innovation being studied, from agricultural practices to technological advancements."
The distribution of adopters was defined, not observed. There's nothing remarkable about it staying the same when the same definition was applied to different products, any more than it would be noteworthy that the first fifth of the people to arrive at a party make up 20% of the attendees.
But def incorrect as written in the article.
That said, I don't really get the conclusion of the article. We should put more effort for productization of LLMs? But isn't that exactly what the big companies are trying to do already?
> when a GPT finds a form factor that allows it to fulfill a real need. Whether it be celestial navigation, steam power or, indeed, the Generative Pretrained Transformer.
