I’d just like to point out that, from the perspective of somebody watching AI develop for the past 10 years, completing 30% of automated tasks successfully is pretty good! Ten years ago they could not do this at all. Overlooking all the other issues with AI, I think we are all irritated with the AI hype people for saying things like they can be right 100% of the time – Amazon’s new CEO actually said they would be able to achieve 100% accuracy this year, lmao. But being able to do 30% of tasks successfully is already useful.
It cant do 30% of tasks vorrectly. It can do tasks correctly as much as 30% of the time, and since it’s llm shit you know those numbers have been more massaged than any human in history has ever been.
yes, that’s generally useless. It should not be shoved down people’s throats. 30% accuracy still has its uses, especially if the result can be programmatically verified.
I have actually been doing this lately: iteratively prompting AI to write software and fix its errors until something useful comes out. It’s a lot like machine translation. I speak fluent C++, but I don’t speak Rust, but I can hammer away on the AI (with English language prompts) until it produces passable Rust for something I could write for myself in C++ in half the time and effort.
I also don’t speak Finnish, but Google Translate can take what I say in English and put it into at least somewhat comprehensible Finnish without egregious translation errors most of the time.
Is this useful? When C++ is getting banned for “security concerns” and Rust is the required language, it’s at least a little helpful.
The problem is they are not i.i.d., so this doesn’t really work. It works a bit, which is in my opinion why chain-of-thought is effective (it gives the LLM a chance to posit a couple answers first). However, we’re already looking at “agents,” so they’re probably already doing chain-of-thought.
It doesn’t matter if you need a human to review. AI has no way distinguishing between success and failure. Either way a human will have to review 100% of those tasks.
Right, so this is really only useful in cases where either it’s vastly easier to verify an answer than posit one, or if a conventional program can verify the result of the AI’s output.
It’s usually vastly easier to verify an answer than posit one, if you have the patience to do so.
I’m envisioning a world where multiple AI engines create and check each others’ work… the first thing they need to make work to support that scenario is probably fusion power.
I’d just like to point out that, from the perspective of somebody watching AI develop for the past 10 years, completing 30% of automated tasks successfully is pretty good! Ten years ago they could not do this at all. Overlooking all the other issues with AI, I think we are all irritated with the AI hype people for saying things like they can be right 100% of the time – Amazon’s new CEO actually said they would be able to achieve 100% accuracy this year, lmao. But being able to do 30% of tasks successfully is already useful.
Please stop.
I’m not claiming that the use of AI is ethical. If you want to fight back you have to take it seriously though.
It cant do 30% of tasks vorrectly. It can do tasks correctly as much as 30% of the time, and since it’s llm shit you know those numbers have been more massaged than any human in history has ever been.
I meant the latter, not “it can do 30% of tasks correctly 100% of the time.”
You get how that’s fucking useless, generally?
yes, that’s generally useless. It should not be shoved down people’s throats. 30% accuracy still has its uses, especially if the result can be programmatically verified.
Run something with a 70% failure rate 10x and you get to a cumulative 98% pass rate. LLMs don’t get tired and they can be run in parallel.
I have actually been doing this lately: iteratively prompting AI to write software and fix its errors until something useful comes out. It’s a lot like machine translation. I speak fluent C++, but I don’t speak Rust, but I can hammer away on the AI (with English language prompts) until it produces passable Rust for something I could write for myself in C++ in half the time and effort.
I also don’t speak Finnish, but Google Translate can take what I say in English and put it into at least somewhat comprehensible Finnish without egregious translation errors most of the time.
Is this useful? When C++ is getting banned for “security concerns” and Rust is the required language, it’s at least a little helpful.
The problem is they are not i.i.d., so this doesn’t really work. It works a bit, which is in my opinion why chain-of-thought is effective (it gives the LLM a chance to posit a couple answers first). However, we’re already looking at “agents,” so they’re probably already doing chain-of-thought.
What’s 0.7^10?
It doesn’t matter if you need a human to review. AI has no way distinguishing between success and failure. Either way a human will have to review 100% of those tasks.
Right, so this is really only useful in cases where either it’s vastly easier to verify an answer than posit one, or if a conventional program can verify the result of the AI’s output.
It’s usually vastly easier to verify an answer than posit one, if you have the patience to do so.
I’m envisioning a world where multiple AI engines create and check each others’ work… the first thing they need to make work to support that scenario is probably fusion power.
I usually write 3x the code to test the code itself. Verification is often harder than implementation.
Yes, but the test code “writes itself” - the path is clear, you just have to fill in the blanks.
Writing the proper product code in the first place, that’s the valuable challenge.
Maybe it is because I started out in QA, but I have to strongly disagree. You should assume the code doesn’t work until proven otherwise, AI or not.