AI has some potential here, because unlike a human, AI can be trained across all of it and has the opportunity to make connections a human, with more limited scope, might miss.
In this particular example it wasn't useful because the reader already knew the answer and was fishing for it with the LLM. But generally using an LLM as a creativity-inducer (a brainstorming tool) is fine, and IMO a better idea than trying to use them as an oracle.
This has been true since Waze and Google maps first came out. Some of the suggestions were like "Huh, I never thought of going that way... hey this works... good job Waze!" and some were like "No Waze, I'm not going to try to cross eight lanes of free-flowing traffic at rush hour."
What sucks is when an AI bot hallucinates some transgression and bans you from a monopoly marketplace for life, with no human recourse. Ask me how I know.
This is fundamentally an incentive problem. Whether MegaCorp reaches this decision through an AI or a team of people who made a mistake, interpreted a rule differently than intended, missed context, whatever, they have been allowed to set up the system in a way which has all the incentives in their favor. They don’t need you and further, helping you costs them money. Yet we allow them to be the only game in town and still say it’s at their convenience to give you service.
The focus in the modern world needs to be on re-incentivizing companies to do the right things, AI or otherwise.
Even in the case of something like a credit card company where it’s not technically a monopoly, you risk them all coming to the same conclusion.
Essential for-profit service combined with at-will service is simply a recipe for failure.
All appeals were denied with increasingly vague language, either by more bots, or humans with strong incentive to just rubber stamp the bot's decision and move on. I'll never know which.
It's all here in this pamphlet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40992654
A weird statement. I think you only care about humans knowing the thing, right? Then it can be true that it doesn't matter if the machine is right or wrong.
However, if the machine is right.. that will have consequences.
That's basically 99% of startups/business too.
> to make connections a human, with more limited scope, might miss.
I do use AI myself but tbh I'm constantly fighting it and find it frequently misses small subtle things that are important. I even notice that people accept answers that I wouldn't, and that's sometimes concerning
Usually.
The media portrays science in an unhelpful manner, gpt-3.5 didnt appear out of thin air, deekseek R1 was built on deepseek MOE was built on research by mistral