4 ms·

>Regular old human customer service has given me incorrect information before and will continue to do so. If the harm is great enough, it has always been the co

>Regular old human customer service has given me incorrect information before and will continue to do so. If the harm is great enough, it has always been the company responsible for damages. >Medicine, law or defense are not areas that require or utilize strict determinism and in fact, incorrect diagnoses and botched operations kill at least thousands of people every year. >Perfect does not exist here so you don't need perfect to improve upon existing methods. If GPT-4 can give more accurate diagnostics than the average doctor then you are only killing more people by not utilizing it as part of the diagnosis process. When a human makes a mistake, the human can be found responsible and in the vast majority of cases just having been informed about the mistake will ensure that they don't make that mistake again. Through our empathy we intrinsically understand enough of human intelligence to consider people to be relatively predictable. However the same cannot be said of AI. A current generation medical AI could simultaneously ace exams for getting an MD and confidently lie to patients about basic health knowledge for no discernable reason, on par with intentionally giving an untreated dysfunctional schizophrenic an MD. See the recent discourse around the use of AI by Israel when it comes to defense, where clearly many people have concerns about using the AI to "morality wash", because all the humans involved can claim to just be following orders. Even if the AI is picking targets more precisely than a human would, if a human messes up, you can sack them, when an AI messes up, you just blame it on the AI, claim to fix it, and then move on to the next time it makes a mistake. You can't really hold the creators of the AI responsible, because they couldn't have predicted the failure mode, and you can't hold the person who executed the fire order responsible because they're just following the orders they've been told to follow and the information they've been told is supposed to hold merit. >Ok...where has that happened ? What things do you now have to do with an LLM that you could on your own before? The comment chain started with asking how such "probablistic UI" could be done. It hasn't been done yet, but it isn't exactly a stretch to believe that it'll eventually happen. We've already had several examples of companies similarly getting rid of "legacy" interfaces to push their "modern" interface. Similarly with UX "designers" and their shitty design languages, eg the way so many websites are optimized for mobile screens, wasting most of the screen space on desktops/laptops. >The reason they remained gimmicks is that google assistant and Siri are not competent enough to do anything that isn't strictly hard-coded in. I see that we'll just have to agree to disagree since I, and everyone I know disagrees on this. Even if Google Assistant or Siri were literal human secretaries, they'd be completely useless if they required being within arms reach of a device where you can just type and read. Speech is simply not an efficient enough communication method and if you can type, it's far more efficient to tap a few buttons (which most of us can do even learn to do with little conscious thought) and fill out some fields than to effectively chat with the software.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>When a human makes a mistake, the human can be found responsible Where corporations or similar entities (law firms, Hospitals, etc, the vast majority of human workers) are concerned, humans are rarely held accountable. Getting fired is not being held accountable. That's just getting rid of a liability and is an option available for AI as well. If negligence of proper quality processes causes a shipment of products to blow up, then the compensation for a new product, possible medical bills and other damages are almost never paid off by the negligent human(s) but by the corporation he/she worked for. A corporation can be sued to bankruptcy while it's employees and even CEO and/or founder are financially just fine. >and in the vast majority of cases just having been informed about the mistake will ensure that they don't make that mistake again. Perhaps. Perhaps not. There is far from a guarantee. >However the same cannot be said of AI. A current generation medical AI could simultaneously ace exams for getting an MD and confidently lie to patients about basic health knowledge for no discernable reason, on par with intentionally giving an untreated dysfunctional schizophrenic an MD. AI can have failure modes different from humans. This is true. This is also something we have dealt with and currently deal with. Animals don't have the same failure modes as humans either. We work with them still because they are useful all the same. And frankly, this is becoming far less of an issue as LLMs are being scaled up. I do not think GPT-4 is really susceptible to this particular issue you have mentioned. >Even if Google Assistant or Siri were literal human secretaries, they'd be completely useless if they required being within arms reach of a device where you can just type and read. Speech is simply not an efficient enough communication method. Secretaries exist still for a reason. If you had one accessible via speech on your phone, you would do far more than what Siri and Google Assistant are capable of. But sure, everyone will have different utilities for one.

famouswaffles 3y ago

>When a human makes a mistake, the human can be found responsible Where corporations or similar entities (law firms, Hospitals, etc, the vast majority of human workers) are concerned, humans are rarely held accountable. Getting fired is not being held accountable. That's just getting rid of a liability and is an option available for AI as well. If negligence of proper quality processes causes a shipment of products to blow up, then the compensation for a new product, possible medical bills and other damages are almost never paid off by the negligent human(s) but by the corporation he/she worked for. A corporation can be sued to bankruptcy while it's employees and even CEO and/or founder are financially just fine. >and in the vast majority of cases just having been informed about the mistake will ensure that they don't make that mistake again. Perhaps. Perhaps not. There is far from a guarantee. >However the same cannot be said of AI. A current generation medical AI could simultaneously ace exams for getting an MD and confidently lie to patients about basic health knowledge for no discernable reason, on par with intentionally giving an untreated dysfunctional schizophrenic an MD. AI can have failure modes different from humans. This is true. This is also something we have dealt with and currently deal with. Animals don't have the same failure modes as humans either. We work with them still because they are useful all the same. And frankly, this is becoming far less of an issue as LLMs are being scaled up. I do not think GPT-4 is really susceptible to this particular issue you have mentioned. >Even if Google Assistant or Siri were literal human secretaries, they'd be completely useless if they required being within arms reach of a device where you can just type and read. Speech is simply not an efficient enough communication method. Secretaries exist still for a reason. If you had one accessible via speech on your phone, you would do far more than what Siri and Google Assistant are capable of. But sure, everyone will have different utilities for one.