Comment by hypfer
4 hours ago
> But the reliability problem is being fixed quickly, as researchers create models that can check their own work and improve themselves. Soon they will be substantially better than humans at many tasks.
Yes, no.
They don't. They just push probabilities higher. The tech is non-deterministic.
Humans are also non-deterministic, for all practical purposes, and the more of them you need to build some piece of software, the harder it can get to keep the likelihood of issues low.
I'm not saying it will happen, but at least it's not inconceivable that LLMs could surpass them in this calculation more and more often.
[dead]
The quality of discussion here is not up to the standards I would want it to be.
What are you even saying there. "Humans are also not perfect, so anything is possible" but painted with a coat of fake intellectualism.
What a waste of time.
So, do you have a counter-argument? Anything that humans can do that goes beyond "pushing probabilities higher"?
1 reply →
Honestly, I think it will come down to liability. With humans in loop, the answer is obvious. It's the human who made a decision. When you have AI make a decision, who is responsible? The AI provider, the person implementing things?
I was debating about this with my cousin, he's a doctor. Doctors are already using AI, but they are still the judgement maker, If the AI makes a mistake, they and the entity they work for are held liable. But it might take a long time to realize that a mistake has been made, so it's going to take a while to work this out. He was arguing that humans are so fallible that it AI can replace them in his field.