2 ms·
Yeah I agree. I think that means that the best use case for this will be either generating junk data where some incorrectness is tolerable, or replacing humans
by chatmasta 4y ago
Yeah I agree. I think that means that the best use case for this will be either generating junk data where some incorrectness is tolerable, or replacing humans for error-prone tasks that you would normally outsource, eg parsing a summary from a web page. Presumably if you're already farming out tasks to MechanicalTurk, you have systems in place for tolerating human error, so you can tune those same systems to tolerate AI error on the same tasks.
- stavros 4y agoYes, exactly. You basically have to design your processes as if you were dealing with humans, because you more or less are.
- chatmasta 4y agoYeah, and that's not an argument against this kind of system, since it's obviously cheaper and more scalable than any human. (And I don't think you're arguing against it as a valid use case anyway.) But it will be interesting to see how this kind of "programming" paradigm seeps into the various software ecosystems.
- stavros 4y agoI think we'll have two workflows, one that is pure programming, and one that is AI/fuzzy, basically AI "modules". Same way you interface with people today, really.