If it turned out an LLM embezzled funds and spent them at an internet casino, we would have folks in the comments explaining that what really matters is the embezzlement rate compared to humans doing the same job.
I think this sums up what I find most frustrating about all of this from the executive level. It feels like everything that was important just a few years ago is now considered unnecessary baggage, that is merely there to slow everything down. What would've got you sacked is now applauded at times, and this is only really a year or two into it proper.
I dunno, for every new hype automation, the machine is given a lot more leeway then people. At least by some on HN. I remember FSD discussion years ago where FSD was already supposedly better then people and all its problems explained away.
Because thats how probabilistic machines work. You can’t change that.
Clearly AI has been extremely useful for doctors despite its “flaws”.
In addition to not enjoying my work as much as what I used to because it's become babysitting an superpowered AI toddler, I now have to deal with this kind of opinion online.
That's hopefully temporary: you are dealing with provisional architectures - as is obvious by their lackings (transparency; reflection; evolution; one shot learning...).
The very fact that you use the term 'AI' for LLMs when some of us would not ("NNs are used in AI" does not mean that all NNs would be AI), or would be wary of that use signifies a problem that is being tackled and will be worked on until the next stage.