2 ms·

> The output is still (very pretty) garbage >10% of the time, and that's the danger zone...the Level 4 of autonomous thinking. What use cases do you have for i

> The output is still (very pretty) garbage >10% of the time, and that's the danger zone...the Level 4 of autonomous thinking. What use cases do you have for it? Isn't it the other way? I'd argue that the output is garbage <10% of the time, and it's those times you have to be a little careful for. What else explains the massive adoption if it isn't providing a decent amount of utility? Overall I agree with the sentiment though. It's like people underestimating how long it takes to complete the last 10% of a software project.

timr 4y ago
> What use cases do you have for it? Honestly, I don't know yet. Maybe it's a better version of those useless support chatbots that were ubiquitous during the last AI hype cycle? Beyond that, you start to get into questions like "how much better is this technology than competing technology X, at benchmarks I care about?". But those questions don't capture the hive mind in quite the same way. > I'd argue that the output is garbage <10% of the time, and it's those times you have to be a little careful for. I don't know where the "bullshit threshold" is for a given task, but I've already seen articles claiming that programmers will be obsolete, citing GPT-generated code that was incorrect. So, you know...YMMV. > What else explains the massive adoption if it isn't providing a decent amount of utility? Hmmmm...I forgot the word. Begins with "H"...hyphen? Hippy? Hippo? Hyperbola?