[TheBozzCL]

Tale as old as ML: people don’t understand it’s an assistance tool, and instead assume it’s always right.

Crazy how we tend to wave away even errors rates of 1% or less. One in a thousand is a lot.

[ben_w]

It really depends on the context; (Some) LLMs look impressive specifically because the error rate is comparable to a high score on an exam… the mistake is that even if it was a straight-A student (it's too alien to be that) then it would still only be a student, and we don't put fresh graduates in charge of everything important.

I don't have the domain knowledge to even guess how good 90% is in molecular biology research.

[olddustytrail]

> we don't put fresh graduates in charge of everything important.

We put dribbling halfwit morons in charge of everything. I'm thinking of Liz Truss as UK Prime Minister, but I'm sure most countries have their own examples.

[ben_w]

"Anything" != "Everything", and examples like the Iceberg Lady are usually followed with "and that's why they went bankrupt, so don't do that".

[jagrsw]

This tool is designed to be helpful right now. Looking ahead, there's no reason why AI can't eventually match, or even surpass, human intelligence across the board.

Whether it's advancements in LLMs, with features like long-term memory, or breakthroughs in other areas of ml, it's not guaranteed that humans will remain needed in the research process.

[Mikhail_K]

> Looking ahead, there's no reason why AI can't eventually match, or even surpass, human

> intelligence across the board.

There is a reason, actually: what is presently called an "AI" has no concern for the truth. It is a bullshit machine that aims to mimic the right answer.