Comment by _carbyau_
7 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.
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.
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.
What happens when the thing they have to be responsible for takes multiple lifetimes to understand on even the most basic level, let alone know deeply enough to feel comfortable taking responsibility for it?
1 reply →
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.