4 ms·
What would you say to the standard counterargument that most existing processes that AI might aim to augment or replace _already_ have a non-zero error rate? Fo
by stuven 2y ago
What would you say to the standard counterargument that most existing processes that AI might aim to augment or replace _already_ have a non-zero error rate? For example if I had a secretary, his summaries _could_ be wrong. Doesn't mean he's not a useful employee!
- __loam 2y agoThe classic humans do it too fallacy.
- signatoremo 2y agoAny specific rebuke in this case? Because it’s especially true for summarization, if someone doesn’t care enough to do a thorough job.
- CooCooCaCha 2y agoYeah it's asinine if you think about it for more than a few seconds. The implication is that there is no nuance. Humans are imperfect and AI is imperfect so therefore they are equivalent.
- j5155 2y agoIf that secretary’s summaries were as consistently wrong and unhelpful as those ChatGPT generates, they would be fired.
- jiggawatts 2y agoNo, they wouldn’t. I regularly work with a wide variety of project managers, product owners, secretaries, etc… I swear that most of them willfully misunderstand everything they’re told or sent in writing, invariably refusing to simply forward emails and instead insisting on rephrasing everything in terms they understand, also known as gibberish that only vaguely resembles English. All of them are still “gainfully” employed.
- Sharlin 2y agoSimple, that's a false equivalence argument that ignores not only error rates, but the quality of the errors made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
- stefan_ 2y agoThe standard processes don't fail in the manner that AI does - they don't randomly start inventing things. Your paralegal might not give you great case law, but they won't invent case law out of thin air.
- klyrs 2y agoAnd if a paralegal did just invent case law, I'm betting they'd find themselves in a shitstorm of legal trouble.