3 ms·
Except there’s an entire thread of people saying it’s useful. No one is trusting it implicitly, but I work with a bunch of folks that are pretty good at what th
by fnordpiglet 4y ago
Except there’s an entire thread of people saying it’s useful. No one is trusting it implicitly, but I work with a bunch of folks that are pretty good at what they do but aren’t infallible and I do have to verify a lot of what they do and say. I don’t dislike them for it, they’re human. Why when it’s a machine that’s largely accurate but sometimes hallucinates it’s a perceived failure, while these folks I work with keep getting promoted and praised for their sometimes untrustworthy work?
- ddalex 4y agoBecause we (or perhaps I) apply different standards to different situations - a bad car driver that causes accidents are accepted as facts of life, whereas a computer driven car is expected to be far safer and have no fatalities. Personally I find it useless to see a machine as a colleague when it is not better in any way then a colleague, in the same way I don't see a hammer as a very punchy workmate. If I want to have a conversation about something I'll go talk to a human, when I interrogate a database I expect it to be better then a random human.