Calling it "Discrimination" is obviously absurd but if the process produces useful results, one ought to seriously consider whether it might be worth switching.

I understand we have always conventionally transported goods by horse. Yes, this employee knows nothing about horses, and in fact is rather spooked by them, but we've checked! Their claim to be able to transport goods faster, without a horse, somehow seems to hold up.

Maybe, just maybe, we should take this whole "truck" concept seriously?

▲

ekelsen 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think the argument is necessarily against the use of the tools entirely. My interpretation is that it's against delegating to them all understanding.

Humans can only usefully steer LLMs if they have some understanding or context the LLMs do not.

	▲	handoflixue 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The person in the story can clearly usefully steer LLMs if they got that far. So either they have that understanding and context, or it's not actually as valuable as was previously thought.
	▲	danudey 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Put another way: if all that you're doing is prompting the AI and giving me the result then I have no use for you. If you're not contributing insight, understanding, experience, or creativity then it's far cheaper for me to prompt the AI myself.