3 ms·

This response always comes up but I think it's not the whole story and gives "AI" a pass. If I report a bug in (for example) Slack that loses messages and cost

by tdeck 2mo ago

This response always comes up but I think it's not the whole story and gives "AI" a pass. If I report a bug in (for example) Slack that loses messages and cost me a lot of time and headaches, is it an appropriate response to say "but Teams has even more bugs" or "sure, but if you had that conversation face to face you might miss something too"?

vidarh 2mo ago
It's not about giving AI a free pass - obviously we should try to remove these errors. It's about whether one reasonable option for removing these errors is to stop using AI or not. If AI increases error rates that would be a reasonable option. If AI doesn't increase the error rates, or even reduces them, it might not be. And hence comparing AI use to a fictional situation where no errors happens is not meaningful. I've personally caught multiple errors that were not just transcription errors, but elementary reasoning errors done by specialists I've seen - the baseline error rate from healthcare providers is far above zero.
red75prime 2mo ago
The article doesn't meet a bug report standard. How would you feel about a bug report that doesn't mention which software were used, which versions were used, but it extensively describes all the harms that were caused by the lost messages. I treat it as it is: a trendy hit piece against AI. There's nothing like "Why they still use Whisper Large V2?" in sight. If this article pushes the establishment to be more transparent about the AI tools, good. But right now there's not much to discuss.
- tdeck 2mo ago
  There are numerous news articles about software or hardware issues that get discussed on HN and don't meet the criteria for a bug report. But it's only the "AI" related ones that elicit this type of response.
  - red75prime 2mo ago
    I reacted to a specific claim about a specific article. I don't have a statistical summary of all articles (even an intuitive one). You seem to have such a summary. Do AI-unrelated articles cause "we need to react to this urgently, like it were a bug report" too? Maybe that's why you don't see answers like mine.

by tdeck 2mo ago

vidarh 2mo ago

It's not about giving AI a free pass - obviously we should try to remove these errors. It's about whether one reasonable option for removing these errors is to stop using AI or not. If AI increases error rates that would be a reasonable option. If AI doesn't increase the error rates, or even reduces them, it might not be. And hence comparing AI use to a fictional situation where no errors happens is not meaningful. I've personally caught multiple errors that were not just transcription errors, but elementary reasoning errors done by specialists I've seen - the baseline error rate from healthcare providers is far above zero.

red75prime 2mo ago

The article doesn't meet a bug report standard. How would you feel about a bug report that doesn't mention which software were used, which versions were used, but it extensively describes all the harms that were caused by the lost messages. I treat it as it is: a trendy hit piece against AI. There's nothing like "Why they still use Whisper Large V2?" in sight. If this article pushes the establishment to be more transparent about the AI tools, good. But right now there's not much to discuss.

tdeck 2mo ago
There are numerous news articles about software or hardware issues that get discussed on HN and don't meet the criteria for a bug report. But it's only the "AI" related ones that elicit this type of response.
- red75prime 2mo ago
  I reacted to a specific claim about a specific article. I don't have a statistical summary of all articles (even an intuitive one). You seem to have such a summary. Do AI-unrelated articles cause "we need to react to this urgently, like it were a bug report" too? Maybe that's why you don't see answers like mine.