4 ms·
LLMs will never replace human experts.
by dprkh 8d ago
LLMs will never replace human experts.
- calvinmorrison 8d agoLLMs are replacing human experts
- dprkh 8d agoin cases where the quality of the output doesn't matter
- dimitri-vs 8d agoMany people have very low quality thresholds
- dprkh 8d agoThen hopefully at some point they get to experience the consequences of having low quality thresholds, and perhaps then their quality thresholds will increase.
- sbarre 8d agoThis is a weirdly reductive take. There are plenty of areas where a "low bar" is more than enough. "low" doesn't necessarily mean bad here, it can simply mean "not the best". I would argue the majority (in the true sense of the word) of white-collar service work does not require an expert. It requires someone who has reasonable qualifications in the given field, and the motivation ($) to help you with your task. So no one needs a top-shelf $900/hour lawyer to draw up a basic low-stakes contract where both parties agree to all the terms as written. You just need someone to ensure that the contract is legally valid as written.
- scottyah 8d agoOr in the long term, no new experts are being made because no companies want to sponsor the slow work and resources that becoming an expert take
- akoboldfrying 8d agoAre you aware of what frontier AI has done to mathematics in the last 6 months?
- dprkh 8d agoI suppose not. I am not a mathematician, and there has been too much drama to understand anything.
- ogogmad 8d agoProfessional maths is sometimes seen as requiring IQ 200,000 creative problem solving skill. You have to imagine creative ways of solving problems which people have never solved before. Failing to do that means you can't become a professional. The subject has lots of theory to help with this, and is sprawling. LLMs can do it better now than most professionals can. It is therefore notable that mathematicians were once confident that their subject tested human ingenuity to its limit. The existential crisis of their field grew from 0 to 100 in only 6 months.
- Culonavirus 8d agoLol no one cares. Most of that is smoke and mirrors anyways. Stokes was plagiarized. Most of these "breakthrough" solutions are actually present in the training data and in the prompts researchers and mathematicians input into ChatGPT themselves, prompts OpenAI then steals even when you don't agree to improve the model. PS: I use LLMs every day, basically let Codex write most of my code (after 15+ years of professional programming), these are amazing tools, smart in some ways, but completely demented in others. People just need to fucking stop being AI doomers and AI coomers. Is this technology great? Yes. Is it worth 10 trillion? Hell fucking no. If we get to a point where RSI is a thing, then maybe. So far it's not a thing and its not even close.
- akoboldfrying 8d ago> Lol no one cares. Most of that is smoke and mirrors anyways. Lol tell me you don't know any practicing mathematicians without telling me you don't know any practicing mathematicians lol.
- lemonlimesoda 8d ago[dead]
- ghshephard 8d agoI'll buy that - but, how often does one need an honest-to-goodness expert? 99% of the time most people's requirements can be satisfied with general-competence, and, while the AI systems we have today are mostly only generally competent in porting code from one language to another - they are getting consistently better. I expect we'll start to see general competence in many more areas in the next few years.
- dprkh 8d ago> I'll buy that - but, how often does one need an honest-to-goodness expert? Any time you are doing anything important, where the outcome actually matters. For example, I was recently applying for a study permit and if I generated my application using an LLM instead of consulting with an immigration lawyer and writing it myself, I would not have gotten my study permit. I was recently applying for internships, and if I hadn't paid a real recruiter to review my resume and advise me, I would not have gotten my interview. And trust me, I spent at least an hour trying to get an LLM to generate what I wanted, but no matter how I begged or described what I wanted, it was no use. Good luck fine tuning an LLM to be good at any of this. > they are getting consistently better No, they are not getting better, and they will never replace an actual human expert, because a human expert has the actual experience and up-to-date knowledge of what they are an expert at, and also all the complementary context and the current state of affairs in that area. The LLM has none of that.
- vjvjvjvjghv 8d agoThe word “never” is a dangerous word. In my lifetime I have seen it many times where something was supposed to “never” happen only to see it happen a few years later.