6 ms·
PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive humans are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes, and their output MUST be reviewed carefully, so you’re not any
by rotcev 5mo ago
PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive humans are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes, and their output MUST be reviewed carefully, so you’re not any different either. You’re just a random next-thought generator based on neuron firing distributions with no real thought process, trained on a few billion years of evolution like all other humans.
- sumitkumar 5mo agoBut once a human learns a function their errors are more predictable. And they can predict their own error before an operation and escalate or seek outside review/advice. For e.g. ask any model "which class of problems and domains do you have a high error rate in?".
- Pfhortune 5mo agoHumans can be held accountable. States have not yet shown the will to hold anyone accountable for LLM failures.
- vanviegen 5mo agoYou're free to hold an LLM accountable in the exact same way: fire it if you don't like its work.
- jojomodding 5mo agoGiving something that has no internal concept of time (or identity for that matter) a prison sentence of n years seems kinda ineffectual.
- mapontosevenths 5mo agoThey are tools. You hold the human using it accountable. If that means it's the executive who signed the PO, so be it. Until LLM's I'd never in my life heard someone suggest we lock up the compiler when it goofs up and kills someone, but now because the compiler speaks English we suddenly want to let people use it as a get out of jail free card when they use it to harm others.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- wg0 5mo agoLooks like you either have not worked with any human or with an LLM otherwise arriving at such a conclusion is damn impossible. The humans I did work with were very very bright. No software developer in my career ever needed more than a paragraph of JIRA ticket for the problem statement and they figured out domains that were not even theirs to being with without making any mistakes and rather not only identifying edge cases but sometimes actually improving the domain processes by suggesting what is wasteful and what can be done differently.
- DrJokepu 5mo agoI think you are very fortunate. I have worked with plenty of software developers like that, in fact, the overwhelming majority of them have been like that.
- wg0 5mo agoThen I was not the smartest person in the room could be the other possibility. And yes, there were always incompetent folks but those were steered by smarter ones to contain the damage.
- throw310822 5mo ago> The humans I did work with [...] figured out domains that were not even theirs to being with without making any mistakes Seriously? I would like to remind you that every single mistake in history until the last couple of years has been made by humans.
- vanviegen 5mo agoI can't tell if you're joking..
- fwipsy 5mo agoHoly shit, you've never worked with anyone who made ANY mistakes? You must be one of those 10x devs I hear about. Wow, cool, please stay away from my team.
- 5mo ago
- mortenjorck 5mo agoAmusing and directionally correct, but as random next-thought generators connected to a conscious hypervisor with individual agency,* humanity still has a pretty major leg up on the competition. *For some definitions of individual agency. Incompatiblists not included.
- paodealho 5mo agoAs fallible as they may be, I've never had a next-thought generator recommend me glue as a pizza ingredient.
- intrinsicallee 5mo agoI'm still not sure what people declaring that they equate human cognition with large language models think they are contributing to the conversation when they do so. Nevermind the fact that they are literally able to introspect human cognition and presumably find non verbal and non linear cognition modes.
- taneq 5mo ago> Nevermind the fact that they are literally able to introspect human cognition and presumably find non verbal and non linear cognition modes. Are they, though? Or are they just predicting their own performance (and an explanation of that performance) on input the same way they predict their response to that input? Humans say a lot of biologically implausible things when asked why they did something.
- intrinsicallee 5mo agoI said introspect, not talk about introspection.
- pyvpx 5mo agoEquating human thought to matrix multiplication is insulting to me, you, and humanity.
- hansmayer 5mo agoErrr... No. Please take this bullshit propaganda to a billionaires twitter feed.
- kokanee 5mo agoI hate that I agree with you. But there's a difference between whether AI is as powerful as some say, and whether it's good for humanity. A cursory review of human history shows that some revolutionary technologies make life as a human better (fire, writing, medicine) and others make it worse (weapons, drugs, processed foods). While we adapt to the commoditization of our skills, we should also be questioning whether the technologies being rolled out right now are going to do more harm than good, and we should be organizing around causes that optimize for quality of life as a human. If we don't push for that, then the only thing we're optimizing for is wealth consolidation.