Comment by thunky
3 days ago
> your comparative analysis (beyond its rather strange disconnect with your fellow Human beings)
You seem to be having a different conversataion here. I'm comparing work output by two sources and saying this is why people are choosing to use on over the other for day to day tasks. I'm not waxing poetic about the greater impact to society at large when a new productivity source is introduced.
> ignores the fact that a "stellar" model will fail in this way whereas with us humans, we do get generationally exceptional specimens that push the envelope for the rest of us.
Sure, but you're ignoring the fact most work does not require a "generationally exceptional specimen". Most of us are not Einstein.
The very fact that you merely see this as "a new productivity source" support my sense of the disconnect I mentioned.
Human beings have patterns of behavior that varies from person to person. This is such an established fact that the concept of personal character is a universal and not culturally centered.
(Deterministic) machines and men fail in regular patterns. This is the "human flaws" that you mentioned. It is true that you do not have to be Einstein but the point was missed or not clearly stated. Whether an Einstein or a Joe Random, a person can be observed and we can gauge the capacity of the individual for various tasks. Einstein can be relied upon if we need input on Physics. Random Joe may be an excellent carpenter. Jill writes clearly. Jack is good at organizing people, etc.
So while it is certainly true that human beings are flawed and capabilities are not evenly distributed, they are fairly deterministic components of a production system. Even 'dumb' machines fail in certain characteristic manner, after certain lifetime of service. We know how to make reliable production systems using parts that fail according to patterns.
None of this is true for langauge models and the "AI" built around them. One prompt and your model is "brilliant" and yet entirely possibly it will completely drop the ball in the next sequence. The failure patterns are not deterministic. There is no model, as of now, that would permit the same confidence that we have in building 'fault tolerant systems' using deterministically unreliable/failing parts. None.
Yet every aspect of (cognitive components of) human society is being forcibly affected to incorporate this half-baked technology.
> The very fact that you merely see this as "a new productivity source" support my sense of the disconnect I mentioned.
Help me understand since my "disconnect" seems to be ruffling your feathers...
What is the correct way to refer to a new tool that is being used to increase productivity?
Or maybe you don't have a problem with the term I used but at the suggestion that someone might find the tool to be useful?
Or is it that I'm suggesting that humans are often unreliable?
I'm having a hard time understanding what is controversial about this.
Machines are better than humans at some things. Humans are better than machines at some things.
Hope you don't find that too offensive.