19 karma · joined November 25, 2022
What they are more than capable of is to produce really convincing hype, which claims that LLMs can do anything and everything.
I can do math myself, thank you very much. If I take the effort to pull out a math calculating machine, the calculation is important enough that I want 99.99% certainty that the answer is right. Under the premise that the answer is wrong, I want 99.999% certainty that the failure is related to data capture and not the calculating mechanism itself.
Within the context of LLMs, the goal should be to make them recognize that the problem at hand is not well suited for its own set of capabilities, and to defer to an external system. In the case of ChatGPT, any numeric answer to "15+23" (including and specially "38") is wrong. The correct answer is "sorry, as a Large Language Model I can retrieve information that is encoded in English and I am not specially suited to solve math problems". A LLM-empowered Alexa may be proactive, run a Calculator program for you and report back "According to bc program, the answer is 38. Here's the full log for you to check if this is what you wanted"
This is not so much AGI as deliberate programmatic patching, not unlike the disclaimers when you ask ChatGPT about controversial topics.
It is ok to let people with bigger appetites to eat more; but if you cannot be civil and keep wasting food, why wouldn't the others kick you out of the table?
1) Why pay less productive employees the same as more productive employees (for the same position)? Because it can be hard to measure performance, and harder to demonstrate to what degree the poor performance is direct responsibility of the employee. To some degree, it is laziness and/or sentimentalism from the employer; but if pursued to the ultimate consequences you may end up expending way more in your super perfect performance measuring infrastructure than what you will end up saving in payroll. It's way easier to turn a blind eye to small inefficiencies and firing actual slackers.
2) Why pay employees with low bargaining power as much as employees with high bargaining power for the same (or better) amount/quality of work? To some degree, every employer does this unless their workforce is unionized. The problem is, greed is an actual invariant in human nature and you do not want to live in a society that lets it run unchecked. It may be nice to save on payroll by low-balling your employees, but then it will be equally nice for Microsoft to send a horde of salesmen to hardcall your client database and offer them juicy cash incentives to drop your business and sign up for their free service...
... or for the matter, for Beaves and Butthead to try and invade your home and take as much of your property as they see fit.
USB-condoms are a thing you know; average (and below) users know exactly what those do and can figure out how to use them in a few seconds. I bet if Apple's genius marketeers would come up with a catchy name (like the i-Safe, but cooler) those would easily sell at 3,000% the production cost. But they never will because they tarnish the brand, and make the users think their devices are not safe by default.
But then, if the device are indeed not safe by default... are we talking about criminal charges here? Would it be fraud, or what is the name of the crime where you knowingly sell hazardous stuff to the public?
Just two obvious thoughts that may be relevant in this case.
From that point of view, severance payments are not noble handouts but compensation strategies to reduce the overall payroll cost.
Tech/IT is too valuable to be ditched altogether, so we are not going back even to the 80s or 90s. But collapse is appropriate for the kind of lean times ahead: companies getting bought on the cheap, investments evaporating, projects shelved, jobs (or even careers) lost.
And no, that's not treating them as animals. But you are not exactly a proper host either.