> Cycling has been shown time & again to be a great way to increase fitness.

Compared to sitting on your butt in a car or public transport.

Perhaps not compared to walking everywhere and chasing the antelope you want to cook for lunch.

I think what he meant is that both bicycles and LLMs are a force multiplier and you still provide the core of the work, but not all of the work any more.

Cycling, in my experience, is usually way more intense than walking or even running/jogging. It just lets you cover larger distance and gives you more control over how your energy is used.

With the example of LLMs, sure, you could cycle the initial destination you were meant to walk to - write an article with its help, save a few hours and call it a day. Or you could cycle further and use the saved time to work on something a text model can't help you well with.

If we're nitpicking, are we talking about cycling as a sport or cycling as a means for getting from point A to point B?

I'm sure cultures where they cycle to everywhere all the time take it easier than cultures where going out for a bike ride is an event.

Just like with LLMs, cycling will allow you to expand your destinations significantly, so comparison with walking is irrelevant.

Not nitpicking, just playing along with the analogy, which i found not that far fetched

I once had blood clots in my legs. I couldn't walk in the worst parts of it but cycling down the street was easier than walking for more than ten metres. It's better than sitting on your butt for hours on end, sure.