3 ms·

> we struggle to get humans to low error rates on large number of steps in sequence too Who said anything about AI vs humans? The contest in this context woul

> we struggle to get humans to low error rates on large number of steps in sequence too Who said anything about AI vs humans? The contest in this context would be AI vs classical deterministic code, algorithms, solvers > how costly it is to work around .. a function of the error rate, consequence of an error that slips past, the cost of a "reliable enough" detector.. produces a good enough results cheap enough. I mean, you're right, but only sort of. Someone can use this same argument to justify the assertion that bogosort is really the pinnacle of engineering excellence. How would you respond?

vidarh 11mo ago
> Who said anything about AI vs humans? I did, because it is a relevant comparison. > The contest in this context would be AI vs classical deterministic code, algorithms, solvers No, it is not. In cases where we know how to solve things that way, we probably should, on the assumption that if they can deliver good enough results they are likely cheaper. Those are not the things we generally are trying to use LLMs for. > I mean, you're right, but only sort of. Someone can use this same argument to justify the assertion that bogosort is really the pinnacle of engineering excellence. How would you respond? That it is an obivously specious argument, because we have clearly lower cost sort algorithms, and so no, you can't use this same argument to justify that assertion.