Comment by mysterydip
7 days ago
This to me is why I think these tools don't have actual understanding, and are instead producing emergent output from pooling an incomprehensibly large set of pattern-recognized data.
7 days ago
This to me is why I think these tools don't have actual understanding, and are instead producing emergent output from pooling an incomprehensibly large set of pattern-recognized data.
> these tools don't have actual understanding, and are instead producing emergent output from pooling an incomprehensibly large set of pattern-recognized data
I mean, bypassing the fact that "actual understanding" doesn't have any consensus about what it is, does it matter if it's "actual understanding" or "kind of understanding", or even "barely understanding", as long as it produces the results you expect?
> as long as it produces the results you expect?
But it's more the case of "until it doesn't produce the results you expect" and then what do you do?
Then you do that part yourself. You let AI automate the 20/50/80% (*) of work it can, and you now only need to do the remainder manually.
(*) which one of these it is depends on your case. If you're writing a run-of-the-mill Next.js app, AI will automate 80%; if you're doing something highly specific, it'll be closer to 20%.
> "until it doesn't produce the results you expect" and then what do you do?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You're asking it to do something, and it doesn't do that?
3 replies →
Then you teach it. Even humans don't always produce the results we expect.
1 reply →
No, I was not making a critique on its effectiveness at generating usable results. I was responding to what I've seen in several other articles here arguing towards anthropomorphism.