3 ms·
> You will still need humans for a good while to sanity check the output Did you read the story? We need AIs to "sanity check" human output more than the other
by p-e-w 4y ago
> You will still need humans for a good while to sanity check the output
Did you read the story? We need AIs to "sanity check" human output more than the other way round.
And while this is an anecdote, it is by no means an isolated incident. Human professionals are being outperformed on trivial tasks (note that this was a common complication of a common disease) by chatbots. I'm far more scared by human incompetence than by AI making mistakes.
- gwd 4y ago> We need AIs to "sanity check" human output more than the other way round. On the contrary; we need AIs to "completeness check" the experts, because experts are prone to forget things or have missing knowledge; we need humans to "sanity check" the AIs because current LLMs are insane: mixed in with brilliant pieces of insight are super-obvious mistakes and outright hallucinations.
- p-e-w 4y agoMany human professionals are incompetent in ways that go beyond just "missing knowledge". This dramatically understates what a colossal problem incompetence is, and one that AIs don't appear to suffer from in the same way. Already with the current generation of AIs, and their strange mistakes and so-called hallucinations, I'd be hard pressed to say that they are overall worse than human professionals, considering what I've seen from those.
- iforgotpassword 4y ago> Did you read the story? I specifically started my comment with "Maybe not in this specific case", but reading your other comments here you unfortunately seem to be mostly focused on ranting about medical professionals. Also a short reminder of the HN guidelines, especially Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".