← Back to context

Comment by ACCount37

8 hours ago

Why not?

So far, every "AI will never be able to do X" is aging like fine milk. Or do you think that engineering is somehow more special than software development or math?

9 comments

ACCount37

Reply
_carbyau_  6 hours ago

Engineers know what needs to be tested, how, to what degree, with which materials, and with what safety margin.

AI can be trained on that body of work. But then AI has enough issues in output that it needs to be verified.

Otherwise we'll live in a world of titan submersibles ordered by CEOs running on hopes&dreams.

  • ACCount37  6 hours ago

    Replace "AI" with "humans" and you get the same exact issues.

    Believe it or not, engineers don't zero shot skyscrapers either. Which is why their work gets reviewed by more engineers. Which catches the issues before they materialize. Sometimes!

    What's the dreaded impossible-to-replicate human advantage? Because I'm not seeing any.

    • _carbyau_  2 hours ago

      I think we might be largely in agreement.

      LLM's should be used to speed up the drudgery, explore creative/evolutionary ideas, but....

      > What's the dreaded impossible-to-replicate human advantage?

      Responsibility.

      Ultimately LLM's are a tool. Someone has to be responsible for the output. You don't get to use it to create a car/plane/submarine/bridge/building/childs-toy/whatever and then if it bursts into flame, blame the LLM and walk away.

      Ideally, the person signing off would "know" what they are signing off on. Which requires an engineer.

      2 replies →

    • fyredge  3 hours ago

      Agency.

      Humans don't seem to need a markdown to decide what to do next.

      Without agency, it's all tools. I guess that's why a 'tool' is sometimes used derogatorily.