Is State of LLM Apps 2023 an Official Report, and How Should Its Data Be Used?

Updated

No—nothing on the site identifies it as an official report. The page title is "State of LLM Apps 2023," but the only content the site exposes without JavaScript is the notice "You need to enable JavaScript to run this app." There is no named publisher, no methodology section, and no cited data source in what the page serves. Treat it as a community or project showcase, not an authoritative statistical release, and verify any figures against primary sources before citing them.

What the site actually tells you

The available page evidence is limited to the app shell and its JavaScript requirement. That means:

  • No visible author or organization. An official report normally names the publishing body on the landing page or in a header.
  • No methodology. There is no description of sample size, collection period, survey design, or how apps were counted.
  • No linked dataset or citations. Nothing in the served content points to raw data or a source list.

A Streamlit-hosted app can absolutely host a rigorous report—but the hosting platform itself is not evidence of institutional backing. The "streamlit.app" subdomain indicates a Streamlit Community Cloud deployment, which any individual or team can create.

How to judge whether the data is citable

Work through these checks before you quote a number from the app:

  1. Enable JavaScript and look for an in-app "About," "Methodology," or "Authors" section. If the app has one, read it before anything else.
  2. Look for named authors or an affiliated organization. A personal name plus a company or university is a stronger signal than an anonymous dashboard.
  3. Check for a linked dataset, repo, or source list. Reproducibility is the clearest marker of a serious report.
  4. Trace key claims to primary sources. If the app says "X% of LLM apps use vector databases," find the underlying survey or dataset and confirm the number yourself.
  5. Note the collection date. A "2023" label tells you the snapshot is old; LLM tooling changes quickly, so figures may no longer describe current practice.

If steps 1–3 come up empty, describe the source in your own writing as "a community project tracking LLM apps" rather than "the State of LLM Apps report."

A practical example

Suppose you want to cite a claim like "most LLM apps in 2023 were built with retrieval-augmented generation." The safe path is:

  • Open the app with JavaScript enabled and find where that figure comes from.
  • If the app links a public dataset or survey, cite that original source directly, with its date and sample.
  • If no source exists, either drop the statistic or attribute it explicitly: "one community dashboard, State of LLM Apps 2023, reports…" and note that its methodology is unpublished.

This keeps your writing accurate whether or not the app turns out to be well-sourced.

When the site is still useful

Even without official status, the app can serve as a discovery tool: a curated view of what people were building with LLMs in 2023, useful for spotting patterns, example projects, or categories worth exploring. Use it to generate leads, then confirm each lead against the project's own documentation or a primary survey. Do not use it as the sole basis for market sizing, trend statistics, or claims about adoption rates.

Bottom line

The site presents itself as a 2023 snapshot of LLM apps but does not establish an official publisher or methodology in its served content. Enable JavaScript to inspect any in-app notes, look for authors and linked data, and verify every figure you plan to cite against a primary source. Until then, treat it as a community showcase—useful for orientation, not for authoritative statistics.