[daveguy]

I would chose a random person from my company that was hired to work in that domain to solve problems in that domain. Yes, regardless of the position. Accountant in the domain, yes. Office organizer in the domain, yes. Essentially anyone in the domain, yes. No offense, but by restricting the selection to the general human population you're setting a low bar for LLMs here.

[kenjackson]

If the bar is for LLMs to replace domain experts about four years after introduction then yes, they are failing miserably.

But if you were to go back to 2020 and ask if your take a random human over a the state of the art AI to answer a text question you’d take the random human every time except for arithmetic (and you’d have to write it in math notation and not plain English).

And if you were to ask AI experts when would you chose an AI they’d say at least not for a decade or two, if ever.

[daveguy]

I wasn't talking about how impressive AI systems are, or how far they've come. I was talking about the fact that any random human with any experience in a specific field -- even though they are not a domain expert -- is going to do better than an LLM. Or, human common sense >>>> what LLMs are doing.

[kenjackson]

We will have to agree to disagree about your fundamental point.

[daveguy]

Fair enough. We will see.