Comment by brookst
2 months ago
Odd take. So if it identified 17 real gaps and helped fix them, the fact it was wrong about one gap, and the appropriate humans caught it and no harm was done, the whole thing is useless?
Not saying that is the situation, I don’t know. But if “one error is too many” is your point of view… do you think the humans in these orgs are 100% perfect 100% of the time?
> So if it identified 17 real gaps and helped fix them, the fact it was wrong about one gap, and the appropriate humans caught it and no harm was done
How many gaps have humans not caught?
> But if “one error is too many” is your point of view
Yes, in regulated industries "one error is too many" is the only right approach.
Yes, humans also make errors, and there you have a range of options: from tracing and finding the causes of the error (and tightening processes) to literally jailing those responsible. Your hallucination machine will happily "identify" 17 gaps, and create 34 more. And no, there are no processes to make it better. The "make no mistakes" incantation will happily be ignored for obvious reasons, regardless of how many forms of it you throw at it.
It doesn't seem like you're engaging with the material circumstances described above. What does it mean for a human to not catch that a part of a codebase is actually compliant with regulations? What does it mean for the hallucination machine to create 34 more gaps when it doesn't appear to have more than read access? How would it not be useful to have a machine that identifies 17 real crimes that your highly regulated business is unintentonally committing even with a 90% false positive rate?
In a regulated industry 90% false positive rate is indistinguishable from 100% failure rate. Hell, in any industry.
You're basically saying "we need human review for literally everything AI outputs because we have no way of saying whether anything it produces is hallucination or not. And since it produces plausible-sounding things really fast, it puts enormous burden on human reviewers".
3 replies →