Is this just a feeling you have or is this downstream of actual use cases you've applied AI to observed and measured reliability on?
Building a process to get a similar confidence in LLM output is part of the game.
It’s when people make the leaps to the multi-year endgame and in their effort to monetise by building overconfidence in the product where I see the inherent conflict.
It’s going to be a slog… the detailed implementations. And if anyone is a bit more realistic about managing expectations I think Anthropic is doing it a little better.
If we want to go in philosophy then sure, you're correct, but this not what we're saying.
For example, an LLM is capable (and it's highly plausible for it to do so) of creating a reference to a non-existent source. Humans generally don't do that when their goal is clear and aligned (hence deterministic).
> Building a process to get a similar confidence in LLM output is part of the game.
Which is precisely my point. LLMs are supposed to be better than humans. We're (currently) shoehorning the technology.
Look at the language you're using here. Humans "generally" make less of these kinds of errors. "Generally". That is literally an assessment of likelihood. It is completely possible for me to hire someone so stupid that they create a reference to a non-existent source. It's completely possible for my high IQ genius employee who is correct 99.99% of the time to have an off-day and accidentally fat finger something. It happens. Perhaps it happens at 1/100th of the rate that an LLM would do it. But that is simply an input to the model of the process or system I'm trying to build that I need to account for.
The same applies to my checkbook, and many other areas of either calculating actuals or where future state is well defined by a model.
That said, there can be a statistical aspect to any spreadsheet model. Obviously. But not all spreadsheets are statistical, and therein lies the rub. If an LLM wants to hallucinate a 9,000 day yearly calendar because it confuses our notion of a year with one of the outer planets, that falls well within probability, but not within determinism following well define rules.
The other side of the issue is LLMs trained on the Internet. What are the chances that Claude or whatever is going to make a change based on a widely prevalent but incorrect spreadsheet it found on some random corner of the Internet? Do I want Claude breaking my well-honed spreadsheet because Floyd in Nebraska counted sheep wrong in a spreadsheet he uploaded and forgot about 5 years ago, and Claude found it relevant?
Without extensive promoting and injectimg my own knowledge and experience, LLMs generate absolute unusable garbage (on average). Anyone who disagrees very likely is not someone who would produce good quality work by themselves (on average). That's not a clever quip; that's a very sad reality. SO MANY people cannot be bothered to learn anything if they can help it.
That's not consistent.
Producing more slop for someone else to work through is not the solution you think it is.
You know what? This is also not unlike hiring a human, they need the hirer party tell them what to do, give feedback, and assume the outcomes.
It's all about context which is non-fungible and distributed, not related to intelligence but to the reason we need intelligence for.
So for those producing slop and not knowing any better (or not caring), AI just improved the speed at which they work! Sounds like a great investment for them!
For many mastering any given craft might not be the goal, but rather just pushing stuff out the door and paying bills. A case of mismatched incentives, one might say.