> Or, it will acknowledge that it made a mistake and continue to make the same mistake again.

People do this too though. At least the AI generally tries to follow instructions that you give it even when you are lacking clarity in the details.

I feel like it's similar to the self-driving car problem. The car could have 99.9999% reliability, drive much better and safer than a human, yet folks will still freak out about a single mistake that's made even though you have actual humans today driving the wrong way down the highway, crashing in to buildings, drunk driving, stealing cars, and all sorts of other just absolutely stupid things.

We need to move away from this idea that because it's an AI system it should give you perfect responses. It's not a deterministic system and it can be wrong, though it should get better over time. Your Google search results are wrong all the time too. The NYT writes things that are factually incorrect. Why do we have such a high standard for these models when we don't apply them elsewhere?

▲

applfanboysbgon 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Your Google search results are wrong all the time too. The NYT writes things that are factually incorrect.

This is also very bad and people complain about these things all the fucking time.

> Why do we have such a high standard for these models

Because Altman and Amodei are defrauding investors out of hundreds of billions of dollars on the promise that they will replace the entire workforce. Of course people are going to point out the emperor has no clothes when half of our society is engaged in mass hysteria worshipping these fucking things as the next industrial revolution, diverting massive amounts of resources to them, and ruining HN with 10 articles on the front page per day about how software engineering is dead.

▲

ericmay 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> This is also very bad and people complain about these things all the fucking time.

So at worst these AI tools are as bad as the existing system. Worth complaining about? Absolutely. Worth holding to much higher standards? Nah I don't think so. Not at this stage at least. And folks are just disappointing themselves by setting up straw men expectations.

These tools are non-deterministic systems (like humans) which sometimes don't do exactly what you want (like humans) but are also extremely fast, much cheaper (for now), and have domain knowledge generation that is much broader than any single human has. Like anything else, there are pros and cons.

	▲	applfanboysbgon 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They aren't "straw man expectations" when the entire US economy is now oriented around those expectations.

▲

dvlsg 22 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> ruining HN with 10 articles on the front page per day about how software engineering is dead.

Even this article, which is theoretically about playing games on a MacBook and not about AI, has devolved into AI discussions. It's honestly kind of tiring.

I suppose the article invites it by putting an AI blurb up top, and I suppose I'm also not helping by adding my own comment, but _still_.

▲

bryceacc an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>I corrected it with links

it should be reasonably expected that you can give a source and fix an error in the AI output.

I would even go as far as to say if a human directly told the AI "no, use 7.6 as the latest version", the AI should absolutely follow direct instructions no matter what it thinks is true. What if this human was working on a slide about the upcoming release of 7.6 that has no public documentation?