| |
| ▲ | toofy a day ago | parent | next [-] | | no. humans can be held accountable and learn from their mistakes. they can be taught where they went wrong. if a pattern emerges they can be moved to a role more fitting for them. or removed from a project entirely. we can judge their effectiveness from past performance. we can put them in less important roles and gauge whether or not they should be moved up. so, no, pretending that the correct route forward is to “remove humans from the equation” for a bot that doesn’t learn, is never held accountable, and not held to the same standard as humans is silly tier thinking. | | |
| ▲ | rerdavies an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Some kid straight out of highschool being paid minimum wage to answer calls with little or no real training, and performance metrics that reward getting people off the line as quickly as possible whether they've given the right answer or not; or an LLM that by many very reasonable measures provides answers as good as those provided by post-graduate students for difficult problems, and spookily accurate answers for questions that are not... I'll take the LLM please and thank you. | |
| ▲ | lkbm 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We shouldn't use an LLM because...LLMs never improve? This seems like a great source for domain-specific RL, but even without that, we can expect there to be higher-quality LLMs that can be trivially swapped in within a year, if not a week. | | |
| ▲ | toofy 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > We shouldn't use an LLM because...LLMs never improve? i didn’t say this at all. did you respond to the wrong comment? i was responding to the comment which said: > … remove humans from the equation, then. | | |
| ▲ | lkbm 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > a bot that doesn’t learn | | |
| ▲ | toofy 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | i most certainly did not say or imply: > We shouldn't use an LLM because...LLMs never improve? the context of my response was “removing humans from the equation” is sillytier thinking. not “We should never use LLMs” | | |
| ▲ | lkbm 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay, but I don't understand what you're getting at with them not learning? They acquire more information, get better at providing accurate and relevant information, and acquire new skills. What is the learning they're not doing? Maybe a human should be available as a backup or something, but not because LLMs don't "learn" -- the system seems to learn in all relevant senses. (I'd also object to the no accountability, but another subthread is already on that.) |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | olmo23 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > humans can be held accountable and learn from their mistakes bad bots can be retrained or shut down far more easily | | |
| ▲ | toofy 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | depending on which model one is using, and the error the employee needs to be retrained on, i strongly disagree that you can retrain an llm as easily as you can a person. particularly most of the commercial models. again, i’m sure we can all come up with a thousand “hypotheticals”, and tbh, the hypothetical parade is not something i’m interested in having. but i’ll state again, “entirely removing humans” from the situation is silly-tier thinking. particularly as even the ceos of sota frontier producing models will each and every single one tell you to never trust their model. “our model is smartest thing in the world…” …next breath.. “wait, you trusted our model? that was silly of you. always double check it” | |
| ▲ | dansquizsoft 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But in government humans are fired all the time! (Especially in mature western democracies) | |
| ▲ | rapidaneurism 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If I instruct an employee to prioritize my profit in a way that opens both of us to criminal prosecution, there is a non zero chance of them whistle blowing or even cooperating with the authorities to prosecute me. I don't see such a path with an llm. |
| |
| ▲ | buriram a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | no. humans can be held accountable and learn from their mistakes.
they can be taught where they went wrong. As an individual, yes. As a population, no. They elected a conman twice and would rather burn down the country rather than changing their view. | | |
| ▲ | intended 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | At population scale, the information economy which was conceived of and built over decades, has been captured for a large portion of the population. Saying they didn’t learn is an incorrect analysis, since they learned well, based on the inputs they were provided. I always recommend Network Propaganda for an empirical analysis of what the patterns actually are. |
|
| |
| ▲ | andrewflnr a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | From which equation? Because we're talking about humans who need to interact with the government, which is... pretty much everyone. And, yeah, I guess omnicide would solve the immediate problem. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan a day ago | parent [-] | | >From which equation? I was referring to the government side, as a mild quip. |
|
|
