5 ms·

Given that people are already firing real human workers to replace them with worse but cheaper LLMs, I'd argue that we're not talking about a competing technolo

Given that people are already firing real human workers to replace them with worse but cheaper LLMs, I'd argue that we're not talking about a competing technology, but that the competition is simply not firing your workforce. And, as an obligate customer of many large companies, you should be in favor of that as well. Most companies already automate, poorly, a great deal of customer service work; let us hope they do not force us to interact with these deeply useless things as well.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
How many humans in your office do you think could solve the questions with better success ratio than GPT-4? I would say less than 20%. If the primary complaint is the blues that GPT-4 wrote is not that great, I think it is definitely worth the hype, given that a year before people argued that AI can never pass turing test.
- gtowey 3y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Language models will always confidently give you answers, right or wrong. Most humans will know if they know the answer or not, they can do research to find correct information, and they can go find someone else with more expertise when they are lacking. And this is my biggest issue with the AI mania right now -- the models don't actually understand the difference between correct or incorrect. They don't actually have a conceptual model of the world in which we live, just a model of word patterns. They're auto complete on steroids which will happily spit out endless amounts of garbage. Once we let these monsters lose with full trust in their output, we're going to start seeing some really catastrophic results. Imagine your insurance company replaces thier claims adjuster with this, or chain stores put them in charge of hiring and firing. We're driving a speeding train right towards a cliff and so many of us are chanting "go faster!"
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    >Most humans will know if they know the answer or not, No they won't. >they can go find someone else with more expertise when they are lacking. They can but they often don't. >the models don't actually understand the difference between correct or incorrect. They certainly do https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    It would have been false dichotomy if I said AI could replace humans. I never claimed it anywhere. I just said AI has its usecases now that makes it worth the hype.
- visarga 3y ago
  LLMs might be better than random people at random tasks, and certainly memorised more trivia. But I never heard of a LLM surpassing subject experts in their field. On top, even the simplest task is unreliable - say, summarisation or translation. There is almost zero autonomy or ability to recover from unexpected situations.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    Yes, that's true but experts costs money and time and GPT-4 is basically peanuts compared to that. Specially in cases where verification is easy like writing test cases or a formal email. And that is the reason enough for the hype. I see similar comments everywhere where AI is praised, and I don't get why you need to comment this. Literally no one ever said LLM surpassed experts in their field, so basically you aren't arguing against anyone.
- masswerk 3y ago
  Meaning, in your office, at least 1 out 5 will see and understand the imminent disaster and put this on halt, before this becomes an overwhelming catastrophe. The LLM, on the other hand, will confidently insist on everything being fine. Now consider your odds on having an office to go to, in a few months. (Mind that this is systemic issue.)
ethbr1 3y ago
The problems with most company-customer interaction, for me, boil down to empowerment and integration. To use the canonical example of "internet service support call," most issues are because the rep either can't do what you're asking (e.g. process a disconnect without asking for a reason) or because they have no visibility into the thing you're asking about (e.g. technician rolls). I honestly think we'd be in a better place if companies freed up funding (from contact center worker salary) to work on those problems (enhancing empowerment and systems integration).
IshKebab 3y ago
But they're only firing humans in specific cases where LLMs can compete with them. LLMs aren't equally good at all tasks.
- sp332 3y ago
  Well, no. https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/neda-suspends-ai-chatbot-for-giving-harmful-eating-disorder-advice/ https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/neda-suspends-ai-chatbot-f... https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/30/tech/gannett-ai-experiment-paused/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/30/tech/gannett-ai-experiment-pa... If the AI is a lot cheaper than a human, then it can make business sense to replace the human even if the AI is not nearly as good.
  - visarga 3y ago
    What's with this zero sum mentality? "replace", "cheaper"... We are updating our expectations very fast. We are fighting over a growing pie. Maybe the cost reduction from not having to pay human wages is much smaller than the productivity increase created by human assisted AI. Maybe it's not an issue to pay the humans. AI works better with human help for now, in fact it only works with humans, never capable of serious autonomy.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >What's with this zero sum mentality? Capitalism baby! You must continually earn more to enrich the investor class regardless of the cost to society as a whole. Just because the pie grows in size doesn't mean those with the capitol have to share it with anyone else. Greed, unfortunately, is limitless.
  - 1024core 3y ago
    Don't forget, faster. If it takes a whole business day to "spin up" a human for a task, and takes literally 5 seconds to call an OpenAI API, then guess what? The API wins.
visarga 3y ago
> Given that people are already firing real human workers to replace them with worse but cheaper LLMs That's impossible, LLMs are not that good. They might be firing people and crashing service quality.
- NoraCodes 3y ago
  Yes, correct.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

How many humans in your office do you think could solve the questions with better success ratio than GPT-4? I would say less than 20%. If the primary complaint is the blues that GPT-4 wrote is not that great, I think it is definitely worth the hype, given that a year before people argued that AI can never pass turing test.

gtowey 3y ago
That's a false dichotomy. Language models will always confidently give you answers, right or wrong. Most humans will know if they know the answer or not, they can do research to find correct information, and they can go find someone else with more expertise when they are lacking. And this is my biggest issue with the AI mania right now -- the models don't actually understand the difference between correct or incorrect. They don't actually have a conceptual model of the world in which we live, just a model of word patterns. They're auto complete on steroids which will happily spit out endless amounts of garbage. Once we let these monsters lose with full trust in their output, we're going to start seeing some really catastrophic results. Imagine your insurance company replaces thier claims adjuster with this, or chain stores put them in charge of hiring and firing. We're driving a speeding train right towards a cliff and so many of us are chanting "go faster!"
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >Most humans will know if they know the answer or not, No they won't. >they can go find someone else with more expertise when they are lacking. They can but they often don't. >the models don't actually understand the difference between correct or incorrect. They certainly do https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r https://imgur.com/a/3gYel9r
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  It would have been false dichotomy if I said AI could replace humans. I never claimed it anywhere. I just said AI has its usecases now that makes it worth the hype.
visarga 3y ago
LLMs might be better than random people at random tasks, and certainly memorised more trivia. But I never heard of a LLM surpassing subject experts in their field. On top, even the simplest task is unreliable - say, summarisation or translation. There is almost zero autonomy or ability to recover from unexpected situations.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  Yes, that's true but experts costs money and time and GPT-4 is basically peanuts compared to that. Specially in cases where verification is easy like writing test cases or a formal email. And that is the reason enough for the hype. I see similar comments everywhere where AI is praised, and I don't get why you need to comment this. Literally no one ever said LLM surpassed experts in their field, so basically you aren't arguing against anyone.
masswerk 3y ago
Meaning, in your office, at least 1 out 5 will see and understand the imminent disaster and put this on halt, before this becomes an overwhelming catastrophe. The LLM, on the other hand, will confidently insist on everything being fine. Now consider your odds on having an office to go to, in a few months. (Mind that this is systemic issue.)

ethbr1 3y ago

The problems with most company-customer interaction, for me, boil down to empowerment and integration. To use the canonical example of "internet service support call," most issues are because the rep either can't do what you're asking (e.g. process a disconnect without asking for a reason) or because they have no visibility into the thing you're asking about (e.g. technician rolls). I honestly think we'd be in a better place if companies freed up funding (from contact center worker salary) to work on those problems (enhancing empowerment and systems integration).

IshKebab 3y ago

But they're only firing humans in specific cases where LLMs can compete with them. LLMs aren't equally good at all tasks.

sp332 3y ago
Well, no. https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/neda-suspends-ai-chatbot-for-giving-harmful-eating-disorder-advice/ https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/neda-suspends-ai-chatbot-f... https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/30/tech/gannett-ai-experiment-paused/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/30/tech/gannett-ai-experiment-pa... If the AI is a lot cheaper than a human, then it can make business sense to replace the human even if the AI is not nearly as good.
- visarga 3y ago
  What's with this zero sum mentality? "replace", "cheaper"... We are updating our expectations very fast. We are fighting over a growing pie. Maybe the cost reduction from not having to pay human wages is much smaller than the productivity increase created by human assisted AI. Maybe it's not an issue to pay the humans. AI works better with human help for now, in fact it only works with humans, never capable of serious autonomy.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >What's with this zero sum mentality? Capitalism baby! You must continually earn more to enrich the investor class regardless of the cost to society as a whole. Just because the pie grows in size doesn't mean those with the capitol have to share it with anyone else. Greed, unfortunately, is limitless.
- 1024core 3y ago
  Don't forget, faster. If it takes a whole business day to "spin up" a human for a task, and takes literally 5 seconds to call an OpenAI API, then guess what? The API wins.

visarga 3y ago

> Given that people are already firing real human workers to replace them with worse but cheaper LLMs That's impossible, LLMs are not that good. They might be firing people and crashing service quality.

NoraCodes 3y ago
Yes, correct.