[svantana]

Wait what? Human programmers produce incorrect results all the time, they are called bugs. If anything, we use automated systems when correctness is important - fuzzers, static analyzers, etc. And the "AI" systems are improving by leaps and bounds every month, look at SWE-Bench [1] for example. It's pretty obvious where this is all going.

[1] https://www.swebench.com/

[kartoffelsaft]

Sure, people make mistakes all the time. But would you prefer those mistakes be sprinkled randomly throughout your data crunching, or be systematic errors?

The point that that post is making is that a machine isn't going to make a mistake in adding two numbers. It reduces arithmetic errors to 0 (unless you count overflow which can be detected), and if it didn't it would only be useful in the rare case you don't care about accuracy.

AI in it's current state does not do for logical accuracy what computers did for arithmetic accuracy; You still need to verify every output from an LLM, which I doubt you've done for the many billions of arithmetic operations that happened this second on the computer you're on right now.

edit: fixed typo

[dapperdrake]

Human computers vs. electronic computers.

Think of electronic calculators. They have a significantly lower error rate than human calculators. Both statistically significant and practically significant.