Hacker News Reader

My interpretation of the argument is "Humans are also non-deterministic, but we make organizations work on a daily basis despite that. We could do the same with LLMs, which may in fact turn out to be less non-deterministic than humans."

This article by Charles Stross (from 2018, hence long before LLMs) makes the case that corporations are an old, slow form of AI: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-yo...

I agree with both takes; organizations have evolved many error-correcting mechanisms like bureaucracy, laws and contracts to keep a gaggle of non-deterministic actors behaving deterministically. There is no reason those actors need to be human.

So, do you have a counter-argument? Anything that humans can do that goes beyond "pushing probabilities higher"?

It is my belief that a prerequisite to a counter-argument is an argument.

why do you think that something being non deterministic means it can't be better than humans at a task? hasn't this same approach been used when developing alpha go which has surpassed humans?