7 ms·
That's (IMO) too narrow view of what a "machine" is. Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance. I still
by drinfinity 3y ago
That's (IMO) too narrow view of what a "machine" is. Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance. I still think approaching this as a "calculator" is awkward at best.
- Jensson 3y ago> Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance Computers are extremely close to 100%, we generally expect a CPU to never make errors even after years of working. If it starts making any errors at all we throw it away and make a new one.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago>Computers are extremely close to 100% We must work in extremely different industries!
- Jensson 3y agoDo you code in checks to check the calculations made by the CPU? I've never ever seen anyone do that. If a CPU starts making errors we throw it away. A typical CPU will make many quadrillions of correct calculations before its first error, I'd say that is basically 0 errors.
- pixl97 3y agoThis is a very weird statement that's failing based on logical category. My computer will pretty much add 1+1 correctly forever never making a mistake. My computer will perform an 'error' every time I put bad code into it, and some of those logic chains and error conditions are not very obvious. The issue here is you think the LLM is performing a category 1 error, when the problem we are seeing is a much more human like category 2 error.