3 ms·
A lot of people complaining about GenAI claim that results that are correct 90% of the time are useless. That, to me, is not true. There are plenty of examples
by ptero 2y ago
A lot of people complaining about GenAI claim that results that are correct 90% of the time are useless.
That, to me, is not true. There are plenty of examples where a 10% incorrect answer is perfectly useful. For example in software with good test harnesses you can trust functions that pass tests whether they are written by staff, an intern or a bot.
But I do think that we have an AI bubble and need a brush fire to refocus on today's solvable problems. A 5-10% of industry effort going to moonshots is fine, 90% is crazy.
- viraptor 2y agoTo generalise, the difference is in verification time / amortised time. If finding the real answer would take me an hour, but I can check a proposed answer in 5sec, I'm going to try at least 20 of the 90% answers before starting the work myself. On the other extreme, if verification would require finding the same original sources that contain the actual answer, then there's no point trying even the 99.9% correct answers.
- c1sc0 2y agoGoogle Search isn’t even close to being 90% useful thanks to SEO, yet we don’t bat an eye about that. Bathwater, baby, throwing much …