4 ms·
Nice packpedal, except now what you said makes no sense anyway because the discussion was about tools doing what you expect them to do, not "tool + human system
by mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Nice packpedal, except now what you said makes no sense anyway because the discussion was about tools doing what you expect them to do, not "tool + human systems" doing what you expect them to. These are two different things.
Do you think a carpenter who hits themselves with a hammer blames the hammer or themselves? Or are you going to unironically tell me they would blame the hammer + human system?
- Satam 4y agoDo you have a more specific point you're trying to make? The discussion is about AI partially replacing human colleagues. In practice, people already are not 100% reliable. You make a reasonable request and someone makes a stupid blunder instead. That's the "hammer" hitting your thumb. Maybe you were not specific enough or maybe they didn't listen but the damage is done. Our work processes already take mistakes and iterative refinement into account. If AI, in some specific niche, is cheaper and makes no more mistakes than humans do, it gets the job. It doesn't need to be perfect or perfectly reliable. Some guardrails will be built into it, and we'll come to trust over time.
- pixl97 4y ago>not "tool + human systems" doing what you expect them to. These are two different things. Please explain how? >Or are you going to unironically tell me they would blame the hammer + human system? As your tooling gets more complex, yes it is very easy to have a non-zero blame assignment to each party. Look at any human+machine system where complex failure conditions can occur.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoYou want me to explain the difference between a hammer and a human wielding one? One is a hammer. The other is a human wielding a hammer.