Back

@ShadowJonathan Why would we judge LLMs on their ability to solve complex tasks? The interesting thing is if they can solve simple tasks well enough to be useful.

@anderspuck because they're expected to solve complex tasks, they're being sold as if they can solve complex tasks, and that they have a fail and error rate enough that they're not safe

They want these things to drive cars and make decisions that involve human lives.

There is a huge difference between LLM and the automation used for cars. How one of the two behaves cannot be used to draw any conclusions about the other.

@kasperd @anderspuck @ShadowJonathan

Dittos! I was about to post the same thing.

The industry has been developing "AI" technologies since before I was born. Many work quite well, and are useful. Some save money. Some save lives.

You probably interact with "traditional" AI systems far more often than you realize.

Each has to be evaluated based on its costs and benefits and risks.

Generative AI / LLMs Chatbots are a dangerous wasteful SCAM.

Self-driving cars are still "iffy."

Self-driving cars are iffy, but human driven cars are dangerous. A self driving car might already be safer than one driven by a human.

The hard question is what will people choose if they are given the choice between two accidents that can be blamed on human drivers or one accident with a self-driving car where there isn't anyone to blame.

@kasperd The solution to cars being dangerous isn’t to replace the drivers. It’s to get rid of the cars in as many places as possible to replace them with free public transit, bikes, and other safer and greener options

By all means let's have better public transit. It doesn't need to be free in order to have an effect. How well it functions is a more important factor in getting people to use it than the price.

I think the real issue to be addressed in that story is not the price of the ticket.