5 ms·

"Models are still expensive to run, hard to use, and frequently wrong". The quote is true for human workers.

• brink 4y ago
  Only to a degree.
  • danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    Debatable
    • prettyStandard 4y ago
      By AI?
      • Symmetry 4y ago
        Yes >Prompt: Someone said "Models are still expensive to run, hard to use, and frequently wrong" Does this also apply to human worker? >GPT4: This statement, while referring to AI models, can also apply to human workers in certain contexts. Here's a breakdown of each aspect mentioned: > Expensive to run: Human workers may have higher costs associated with hiring, salaries, benefits, and overhead expenses. However, the costs of human workers can be justified in many cases due to their adaptability, creativity, and ability to learn. > Hard to use: Human workers can be more difficult to manage compared to AI models, due to factors like communication, collaboration, and personal differences. However, humans are capable of adapting to new situations and understanding complex, nuanced scenarios. > Frequently wrong: Humans, like AI models, are not infallible and can make mistakes or errors in judgment. However, humans possess the ability to learn from their mistakes, improve over time, and apply critical thinking to avoid making the same errors in the future. > So, while there are similarities between the statement's implications for AI models and human workers, it is important to remember that both have their unique strengths and weaknesses. The best approach often involves combining the capabilities of AI and human workers to achieve optimal results.
        • danielmarkbruce 4y ago
          Better than the vague explanation I'd have come up with to support my comment.
          • LesZedCB 4y ago
            ok, i guess this isn't something we are supposed to admit, but there are many things i have learned over the years which have been distilled to thought-bites, right? i often want to comment just short things, slogans almost. these AI have been invaluable in beefing up my slogans into longer statements with the un-distilled facts laid out in bullet points. it's pretty helpful as an argument de-compression tool. but that has pretty serious epistemological concerns. and to the people who are concerned about that - well i think that's funny... maybe take a walk down the science of how poor memory really is. i guess i just have a very attenuated view of human (including my own) rationality. it's waaaaay more inflated for the average human than we're willing to admit. i made a comment early on in December about the oncoming epistemological crisis and damn has it been really fun to watch unfold the last few months.
            • luckylion 4y ago
              An advanced specialized Model could probably create fleshed out arguments from your thought-bites and subtly manipulate you by weaving other positions you don't/didn't have into the argument. "You're right, because xyz is correct and that makes your argument correct", making you more likely to accept xyz as correct, because we like being right and if accepting xyz makes you right in this very moment, that's a small price to pay. it feels like that would require much more sophistication, but then again who hasn't been amazed how intelligent ChatGPT & friends feel?
              • LesZedCB 4y ago
                the RLHF has indeed made them quite sycophantic. i don't believe in any of the 'latent space wario' stuff, but i really enjoy using it explicitly to get clarification and explanation from opposing viewpoints. i would love to see some experiment where a debate is held/moderated by an LLM which can help find common ground in highly contentious viewpoints. the post-mortem from each side would be a fascinating read.
• pixl97 4y ago
  And, at least at this time AI isn't going to ask for rights, time off for family, or even ask for a break after 340 hours of working. We are having modern John Henry moment where the machines still stuck just enough that humans are ahead, but even small improvements in machines lead to a rapid replacements of parts of the workforce. Much like we didn't stop improving drills, and no one in their right mind would drill a commercial tunnel without machine labor, our current AI models based in LLMs are still in their infancy, no one has any plans on stopping here. We should also note that John Henry dies in the story from overworking, so we may want to take that in mind too.
  • afavour 4y ago
    > at least at this time AI isn't going to ask for rights, time off for family, or even ask for a break after 340 hours of working. People said the same stuff with the advent of computing. We’d all be living lives of leisure while computers did our jobs for us. It definitely didn’t work out that way.
    • pixl97 4y ago
      Meanwhile the 1% have captured an ever increasing amount of wealth while wages have stagnated for decades. Computers have in theory massively automated the world, but it also consolidates capital.
  • hammyhavoc 4y ago
    I don't think AI needs an analogy, especially one of manual physical labour, especially when it primarily affects "knowledge workers".
• mstolpm 4y ago
  You can blame a worker it something goes wrong and you trusted their result. But you can't go to YOUR boss and blame ChatGPT if YOU used the wrong prompt and trusted the result of the AI. Salary isn't for delivering an untrustworthy result, its for being responsible for the result. AI doesn't take responsibility.
  • Turing_Machine 4y ago
    > AI doesn't take responsibility. You've provided the answer yourself. The person who signs off on using the AI output bears the responsibility, unless the AI company provides some kind of guarantee, in which case the AI company bears responsibility. These aren't new issues. That's why we have things like malpractice insurance, liability insurance, and so on.