[stuven]

What would you say to the standard counterargument that most existing processes that AI might aim to augment or replace _already_ have a non-zero error rate? For example if I had a secretary, his summaries _could_ be wrong. Doesn't mean he's not a useful employee!

[Sharlin]

Simple, that's a false equivalence argument that ignores not only error rates, but the quality of the errors made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[j5155]

If that secretary’s summaries were as consistently wrong and unhelpful as those ChatGPT generates, they would be fired.

[jiggawatts]

No, they wouldn’t.

I regularly work with a wide variety of project managers, product owners, secretaries, etc…

I swear that most of them willfully misunderstand everything they’re told or sent in writing, invariably refusing to simply forward emails and instead insisting on rephrasing everything in terms they understand, also known as gibberish that only vaguely resembles English.

All of them are still “gainfully” employed.

[stefan_]

The standard processes don't fail in the manner that AI does - they don't randomly start inventing things. Your paralegal might not give you great case law, but they won't invent case law out of thin air.

[klyrs]

And if a paralegal did just invent case law, I'm betting they'd find themselves in a shitstorm of legal trouble.

[__loam]

The classic humans do it too fallacy.

[signatoremo]

Any specific rebuke in this case? Because it’s especially true for summarization, if someone doesn’t care enough to do a thorough job.

[CooCooCaCha]

Yeah it's asinine if you think about it for more than a few seconds. The implication is that there is no nuance. Humans are imperfect and AI is imperfect so therefore they are equivalent.