[userbinator]

People treating tools like they're infallible has been a problem since computers were invented, but IMHO the biggest difference with AI is how confident and convincing it can be in its output. Much like others here, I already have had to convince, very carefully, many otherwise-decently-intelligent people who believed ChatGPT was correct.

Thus I think the biggest success of AI will be the arts, where imprecision is not fatal, and hallucinations turn into entertainment instead of "truths".

[antonvs]

I think this misses something important. If it makes economic sense, corporations will figure out ways to integrate AI into their processes, even if it's imperfect. After all, companies are already built out of humans who are also often confidently wrong - but successful companies have ways to detect and mitigate that. In fact, that's one of the primary requirements for a company to survive, that it's able to build a functioning system out of imperfect components, particularly humans.

You can see an example of this in the use of LLMs to generate code. In that case, there's a whole SDLC pipeline designed to detect errors: type systems, language compilers and runtimes, tests of various kinds, QA, user feedback, etc. We don't just trust confident software developers to produce correct code.

Even a life-critical function like medical imaging - where imprecision can be fatal - can potentially benefit from this, where AI is used in conjunction with human review. It mainly requires development of some standards of practice - unlike with an average user blindly trusting the output of a model, radiologists would need training on how to use the models in question.