3 ms·
You think too highly of humans. Humans are not reliable. For every "no human would make this kind of mistake", you can find dozens to hundreds of thousands of
by ACCount36 1y ago
You think too highly of humans.
Humans are not reliable. For every "no human would make this kind of mistake", you can find dozens to hundreds of thousands of instances of humans making this kind of mistake.
- margalabargala 1y agoA reasonable person [0] would not make that mistake. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
- ACCount36 1y ago[flagged]
- dolebirchwood 1y agoIf nothing else, you're certainly making your case stronger with each successive comment.
- margalabargala 1y agoNo but I've read about them in books.
- const_cast 1y agoThat's just because there's a lot of humans and we're doing a lot of things, all the time. Humans are pretty good at not making mistakes in high-reasoning scenarios. The problem is that humans make mistakes in everything pretty constantly. Like, even saying a word - people say the wrong word all the time. So when we look at really easy tasks that can be trivially automated, like say adding 2 + 2, we say "humans are so stupid! Computer is smart!". Because humans get 2 + 2 wrong 1% of the time, but computers always get it right. But, as we know, this isn't how it works. Actually, humans are much smarter than computers, and it's not even close. Because intelligence is multi-dimensional. The thing is, that failure rate for humans stays pretty constant as the complexity of the task increases, to a degree. Whereas computers start failing more and more, and quickly. It's a very, VERY sharp cliff for algorithms. LLMs take the cliff further, but they do not eliminate it.