> 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 adop

> 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.