| It's not comfort with uncertainty, it's discomfort with the predictable effects of uncertainty. I don't want to have to waste time tidying up after an unreliable software tool which is being sold as saving me time. I don't want to be misled by hallucinated fantasies that have no relationship to reality. (See also - lawyers getting laughed out of courtrooms because of this.) I don't want to have to cancel a travel booking because an AI agent booked me a holiday in Angkor Wat when I wanted a train ticket to Crystal Palace in South London. Hypotheticals? Not even slightly. Ask anyone who's lost their KDP author account on Amazon or been locked out of Meta because of AI moderation errors. This is common sense, not some kind of personality flaw. I'm happy using LLMs for coding and research, but it's also clear the technology is in perpetual beta - at best - and is being wildly oversold. Normal software operating with this level of reliability would be called "very buggy." But apparently LLMs get a pass because one day they might not be as buggy as they are today. Which - if you think about it - is ridiculous, even by the usual standards of the software industry. |
> comfortable with the uncertainty, and accommodate it in your use
Many of the tasks you listed are require absolute determinism.
> regardless of how well it may work for a subset of tasks they try
You're using examples of absolute determinism, even though, with certainty, it has worked for some tasks you've throw at it.