Comment by red75prime
9 hours ago
> it would hallucinate a plausible sounding but incorrect answer
"Hallucinate" as used in this context does not apply to humans and presupposes a qualitative difference.
9 hours ago
> it would hallucinate a plausible sounding but incorrect answer
"Hallucinate" as used in this context does not apply to humans and presupposes a qualitative difference.
I was saying that an AI would more likely hallucinate an incorrect answer than correctly diagnose the root cause failure. At no time was I comparing an AI to a human, thats the bit you made up.
The knee-jerk reaction to pointing out any failure modes of AI with, "but meatbags bad!" is a tiring strawman to deal with. It immediately turns the discussion into something else.
Humans crash millions of cars a year, and you're worried about one dog driver running over four measly people?
So, your message is "Unspecified AI models with or without additional training aren't ready to do aerospace fault analysis and they can lead experienced engineers astray." OK, it might or mightn't be true depending on the free parameters in your statement.
I used the word "likely" meaning there is a chance, your re-phrasing of what I said into a certainty ... and then refuting that certainty, is another textbook strawman argument, you made the same logical fallacy again.
Also I said "intermediate and junior" engineers - meaning INexperienced engineers, not experienced ones, so you quoted me wrong in that part too.