4 ms·

> The issue is when people assumes that a zero failure rate, or even close to zero, is necessary for utility, even though we don't need that from humans for hum

> The issue is when people assumes that a zero failure rate, or even close to zero, is necessary for utility, even though we don't need that from humans for humans to be useful for complex tasks. This argument doesn't carry because it is beside the point. Human vs. LLM utility parity isn't a sensible stop-goal for improvement. New technology isn't adopted for its legacy parity. Nor are there any specific technical barriers around human parity. Fewer mistakes than humans, by definition, delivers unique value. People also want to spin up LLMs to handle tasks at scale in ways humans never could, where human level mistakes would be unacceptable. So we very much do need LLMs (or whatever we call them tomorrow) to operate with lower error bars than humans. It is a reasonable demand. Lots of applications are waiting. Given that demand, the value of avoiding any mistake, and the many people working on it, error rates will keep falling indefinitely.

vidarh 11mo ago
> This argument doesn't carry because it is beside the point. Human vs. LLM utility parity isn't a sensible stop-goal for improvement. New technology isn't adopted for its legacy parity. Nor are there any specific technical barriers around human parity. This is just utter nonsense. New technology is sometimes adopted because it is better, but just as often adopted even when the quality is strictly worse if it is cheaper. But apart from that you appear to arguing against a point I never made, so it's not clear to me what the point of your response is. > Fewer mistakes than humans, by definition, delivers unique value. Yes, but that is entirely irrelevant to the argument I made. > Given that demand, the value of avoiding any mistake, and the many people working on it, error rates will keep falling indefinitely. And this is also entirely irrelevant to the point I made, and not something I've ever argued against.
- Nevermark 11mo ago
  > when the quality is strictly worse if it is cheaper True. I stand corrected.

vidarh 11mo ago

> This argument doesn't carry because it is beside the point. Human vs. LLM utility parity isn't a sensible stop-goal for improvement. New technology isn't adopted for its legacy parity. Nor are there any specific technical barriers around human parity. This is just utter nonsense. New technology is sometimes adopted because it is better, but just as often adopted even when the quality is strictly worse if it is cheaper. But apart from that you appear to arguing against a point I never made, so it's not clear to me what the point of your response is. > Fewer mistakes than humans, by definition, delivers unique value. Yes, but that is entirely irrelevant to the argument I made. > Given that demand, the value of avoiding any mistake, and the many people working on it, error rates will keep falling indefinitely. And this is also entirely irrelevant to the point I made, and not something I've ever argued against.

Nevermark 11mo ago
> when the quality is strictly worse if it is cheaper True. I stand corrected.