[ItsBob]

It's not as black-and-white as "Brenda good, AI bad". It's much more nuanced than this.

When it comes to (traditional) coding, for the most part, when I program a function to do X, every single time I run that function from now until the heat death of the sun, it will always produce Y. Forever! When it does, we understand why, and when it doesn't, we also can understand why it didn't!

When I use AI to perform X, every single time I run that AI from now until the heat death of the sun it will maybe produce Y. Forever! When it does, we don't understand why, and when it doesn't, we also don't understand why!

We know that Brenda might screw up sometimes but she doesn't run at the speed of light, isn't able to produce a thousand lines of Excel Macro in 3 seconds, doesn't hallucinate (well, let's hope she doesn't), can follow instructions etc. If she does make a mistake, we can find it, fix it, ask her what happened etc. before the damage is too great.

In short: when AI does anything at all, we only have, at best, a rough approximation of why it did it. With Brenda, it only takes a couple of questions to figure it out!

Before anyone says I'm against AI, I love it and am neck-deep in it all day when programming (not vibe-coding!) so I have a full understanding of what I'm getting myself into but I also know its limitations!

[nerdjon]

> When I use AI to perform X, every single time I run that AI from now until the heat death of the sun it will maybe produce Y. Forever! When it does, we don't understand why, and when it doesn't, we also don't understand why!

To make this even worse, it may even produce Y just enough times to make it seem reliable and then it is unleashed without supervision, running thousands or millions of times, wrecking havoc producing Z in a large number of places.

[ryandrake]

Exactly. Fundamentally, I want my computer's computations to be deterministic, not probabilistic. And, I don't want the results to arbitrarily change because some company 1,500 miles away from me up-and-decided to "train some new model" or whatever it is they do.

A computer program should deliver reliable, consistent output if it is consistently given the same input. If I wanted inconsistency and unreliability, I'd ask a human to do it.

[ethbr1]

The problem with this is that it runs counter to AI company valuations.

Their valuations: AI all the things

Reality: AI the minimum number of steps, surrounded by guardrails and traditional deterministic automation

But AI companies won't be worth AI money if that reality persists.

[LightBug1]

It's not arbitrary ... your precise and deterministic, multi-year, financial analysis needs to be corrected every so often for left-wing bias.

/s ffs

[cteiosanu]

> To make this even worse, it may even produce Y just enough times to make it seem reliable and then it is unleashed without supervision, running thousands or millions of times, wrecking havoc producing Z in a large number of places.

Reminds me of the famous Xerox scanning bug: https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres...

[qazxcvbnmlp]

Brenda also needs to put food on the table. If Brenda is 'careless' and messes up we can fire Brenda, because of this Brenda tries not to be carless (also other emotions). However I cannot deprive an AI model of pay because it messed up;

[a123b456c]

This is the reason the higher-ups in finance who rely on Brenda might continue to rely on Brenda, rather than relying on AI. She offers them accountability.

[fortzi]

You might be looking for the word “accountability”

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

It is it even worse in a sense that. It is not either. It is not neither. It is not even both as variations of Branda exist throughout the multiverse in all shapes and forms including one that can troubleshoot her own formulas with ease and accuracy.

But you are absolutely right about one thing. Brenda can be asked and, depending on her experience, she might give you a good idea of what might have happened. LLMs still seem to not have that 'feature'.

[tekbruh9000]

The post you replied to called out how the argument is complicated arguing for both ways; Brenda bad-AI good and AI bad-Brenda good. You reduced it to "AI bad, Brenda good." Not sure about the rest of your response then.

Brenda just recalls some predetermined behaviors she's lived out before. She cannot recall any given moment like we want to believe.

Ever think to ask Brenda what else she might spend her life on if these 100% ephemeral office role play "be good little missionaries for the wall street/dollar" gigs didn't exist?

You're revealing your ignorance of how people work while being anxious about our ignorance of how the machine works. You have acclimated to your ignorance well enough it seems. What's the big deal if we don't understand the AI entirely? Most drivers are not ASE certified mechanics. Most programmers are not electrical engineers. Most electrical engineers are not physicists. I can see it's not raining without being a climatologist. Experts circumlocute the language of their expertise without realizing their language does not give rise to reality. Reality gives rise to the language. So reality will be fine if we don't always have the language.

Think of a random date generator that only generates dates in your lived past. It does so. Once you read the date and confirm you were alive can you describe what you did? Oh no! You don't have memory of every moment to generate language for. Cognitive function returned null. Universe intact.

Lack of understanding how you desire is unimportant.

You think you're cherishing Brenda but really just projecting co-dependency that others LARP effort that probably doesn't really matter. It's just social gossip we were raised on so it takes up a lot of our working memory.