4 ms·

This argument style is always humorous. The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “wh

This argument style is always humorous. The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?”.

AndrewKemendo 4mo ago
The entire purpose of automation is to remove a capacity limited human from a continuous workflow because the workflow is more capably achieved with fewer errors than the human See: traffic lights
- ofjcihen 4mo ago
  That’s a great explanation of automation. If I have a choice between a deterministic traffic light and a non-deterministic traffic light which one would I use? And yes, before you say “this isn’t a comparison of non deterministic and deterministic tools, this is a comparison of two non-deterministic tools” think about what my next question might be.
  - anuramat 4mo ago
    > think about what my next question might be or you could just say it yourself instead
- overgard 4mo ago
  An AI traffic light sounds like an excellent way to kill a lot of people
Ukv 4mo ago
> The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?” If AI really is at human level quality/error rate (I don't think it is for general tasks, but there are some areas where it is), then the answer is typically cost and speed/capacity.
- ofjcihen 4mo ago
  Have outputs from engineers traditionally been measured in cost and speed? Remember, we aren’t just talking about the product you create. While you would measure deliverables by cost and speed are we ignoring something else? Something that could potentially be more important than either of those metrics?
  - Ukv 4mo ago
    > Have outputs from engineers traditionally been measured in cost and speed? Yes. How long it'll take and how much it'll cost are going to be among pretty much any customer's first questions. They're not the only considerations, and could potentially be outweighed by other concerns even when quality is the same, but I think they are the main drives of AI adoption in industry. If error rate is the same, a $1/hr (amortized) camera and machine vision model capable of checking 300ft of material for defects per minute will likely be preferred to a $10/hr human QA capable of checking 30ft per minute, for instance.
    - ofjcihen 4mo ago
      Oh machine learning has been useful for measuring deterministic and non deterministic outputs for a long time. But that’s not the argument here, is it? So the question still stands.
      - Ukv 4mo ago
        My understanding of your argument is (paraphrasing): > > People try to excuse AI issues/failure modes by saying humans have them too, but even if they're equally bad then what would be the whole point of replacing a human worker with AI? To which my response is that speed and cost are also important factors, which can often give AI the edge in considerations when quality/error rate is equal. If you meant something other than that, you may have to specify.
        ofjcihen 4mo ago
sph 4mo ago
We must give this fallacy a name. It’s the facile way out of the argument used by boosters whenever one dares to criticize LLMs.

AndrewKemendo 4mo ago

The entire purpose of automation is to remove a capacity limited human from a continuous workflow because the workflow is more capably achieved with fewer errors than the human See: traffic lights

ofjcihen 4mo ago
That’s a great explanation of automation. If I have a choice between a deterministic traffic light and a non-deterministic traffic light which one would I use? And yes, before you say “this isn’t a comparison of non deterministic and deterministic tools, this is a comparison of two non-deterministic tools” think about what my next question might be.
- anuramat 4mo ago
  > think about what my next question might be or you could just say it yourself instead
overgard 4mo ago
An AI traffic light sounds like an excellent way to kill a lot of people

Ukv 4mo ago

> The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?” If AI really is at human level quality/error rate (I don't think it is for general tasks, but there are some areas where it is), then the answer is typically cost and speed/capacity.

ofjcihen 4mo ago
Have outputs from engineers traditionally been measured in cost and speed? Remember, we aren’t just talking about the product you create. While you would measure deliverables by cost and speed are we ignoring something else? Something that could potentially be more important than either of those metrics?
- Ukv 4mo ago
  > Have outputs from engineers traditionally been measured in cost and speed? Yes. How long it'll take and how much it'll cost are going to be among pretty much any customer's first questions. They're not the only considerations, and could potentially be outweighed by other concerns even when quality is the same, but I think they are the main drives of AI adoption in industry. If error rate is the same, a $1/hr (amortized) camera and machine vision model capable of checking 300ft of material for defects per minute will likely be preferred to a $10/hr human QA capable of checking 30ft per minute, for instance.
  - ofjcihen 4mo ago
    Oh machine learning has been useful for measuring deterministic and non deterministic outputs for a long time. But that’s not the argument here, is it? So the question still stands.
    - Ukv 4mo ago
      My understanding of your argument is (paraphrasing): > > People try to excuse AI issues/failure modes by saying humans have them too, but even if they're equally bad then what would be the whole point of replacing a human worker with AI? To which my response is that speed and cost are also important factors, which can often give AI the edge in considerations when quality/error rate is equal. If you meant something other than that, you may have to specify.
      - ofjcihen 4mo ago

sph 4mo ago

We must give this fallacy a name. It’s the facile way out of the argument used by boosters whenever one dares to criticize LLMs.