> Try it, and assess the results
And who cleans the following mess?
And who cleans the following mess?
Normally we try to avoid damage - which frequently cannot be fully repaired.
And cleaning up mess is not an efficient use of resources.
Incentive is there to find non-damaging solutions first (Carlo Cipolla warns us about the amount of damage introduced in the system - the balance can be tricky). Cost-Risk-Benefit are due diligence.
...If a NN comes up with better solutions, it has won (the battle)...
The mess that is left behind is not damage. It's evidence. It's what would keep people in jobs. People losing their jobs is damage. People having work to do is not.
People having work to do which could have been avoided, resources wasted in repairs that were not needed - that's really what we do not want.
They should not be working then.
(I know they do work anyway even if they should not. What I am saying is, "the problems are at the source".)
If for «getting the result you want» you meant "creating damage in order to prove a point and discard some ways", I said that there must be a better way.
I'm not what you don't understand. People need experience before doing stuff with stuff that is completely brand new?! It's completely impossible. You're taking an approach which you think results in not being wrong. That is about you trying to be 100% right. And that attitude results in your being completely disregarded and those who you think are wrong doing stuff you don't want. You've just been a naysayer.
> If for «getting the result you want» you meant "creating damage in order to prove a point and discard some ways", I said that there must be a better way.
One you're talking about damage. If there is damage after 48 hours you're completely terrible are your job. It should just be a somewhat quick clean up. And there isn't. Anyone who has dealt with this sort of stuff and got the results they wanted knows sometimes you need to see the pain before you understand that something doesn't work. Most people need evidence to believe something. Your naysaying doesn't do it. You're not helping, you're just wasting time.
Not exactly. Once something come out you study it as much as it is necessary, you assess it, then you employ it smartly - that's how it should be done. Those "needing evidence" in your depiction seem akin to those who decide to date drug addicts, jump down buildings etc. because "they do not know yet, it could work out fine": the first problem that one has to pose is that those profiles should not manage - that should be the main background idea. Then, if the issue - at human resources level - happens, strategies must be implemented to contain damage. This implies, you do not talk about creating damage lightly. One bad experience for a counterpart makes you lose opportunities forever: the failed counterparts will go, "good to know, now next please".
> And that attitude results in your being completely disregarded and those who you think are wrong doing stuff you don't want
Actually, what you would do in real life, is proving your point to the interlocutor through showing the evidence ("Have you noticed <this and that>?"). I do not have to convince you here about any specific position such as "LLMs can't fly", it's not the relevant purpose here.
> naysayer
I have said, (1) perform a Cost-Risk-Benefit and see what is the best strategy; (2) do not just stand over the specific case but foresee where its roots bring, and work on them roots. That is positive.
The first way is diplomacy. Show and reason. If it fails, then artillery. But in that order.
(And before all of that, prevention.)
I don't think you've ever actually done any of this.
> The first way is diplomacy. Show and reason. If it fails, then artillery. But in that order.
Letting someone do a trial is diplomacy...
If you mean that the "normal way" I have drawn is not feasible, show that it is not. If you mean "they cannot be convinced", well... They must be either convinced or overridden, if you are the one that bears the damage.