> This is not relevant, humans are also nondeterministic. I mean, I suppose one can technically say that, but, as I was very clearly describing, humans both er

> This is not relevant, humans are also nondeterministic. I mean, I suppose one can technically say that, but, as I was very clearly describing, humans both err in predictable ways, and can be taught not to err. Humans are not nondeterministic in anything like the same way LLMs are. LLMs will just always have some percentage chance of giving you confidently wrong answers. Because they do not actually "know" anything. They produce reasonable-sounding text. > Yes there is ...And no matter how well you engineer your prompts, you cannot guarantee that the LLM's outputs will be any less confidently wrong. You can probably make some improvements. You can hope that your "prompt engineering" has some meaningful benefit. But not only is that nowhere near guaranteed, every time the models are updated, you run a very high risk that your "prompt engineering" tricks will completely stop working. None of that is true with humans. Human fallibility is wildly different than LLM fallibility, is very-well-understood overall, and is highly and predictably mitigable.