3 ms·
I interpreted the op's argument to be that > For simple tasks where we would alternatively hire only ordinary humans AIs have similar error rates. Yes if a ta
by brokensegue 2y ago
I interpreted the op's argument to be that
> For simple tasks where we would alternatively hire only ordinary humans AIs have similar error rates.
Yes if a task requires deep expertise or great care the AI is a bad choice. But lots of tasks don't. And in those kinds of tasks even ordinary humans are already too expensive to be economically viable
- mdp2021 2y agoSorry for the delay. If you are still there: > But lots of tasks Do you have good examples of tasks in which dubious verbal prompt could be an acceptable outcome? By the way, I noticed: > AI Do not confuse LLMs with general AI. Notably, general AI was also implemented in system where critical failures would be intolerable - i.e., made to be reliable, or part of a finally reliable process.
- brokensegue 2y agoYes lots of low importance tasks. E.g. assigning a provisional filename to an in progress document Checking documents for compliance with a corporate style guide