[pegasus]

They are transient only in those rare domains that can be fully formalized/specified. Like chess. Anything that depends on the messy world of human - world interactions will require humans in the loop for translation and verification purposes.

[stevage]

>Anything that depends on the messy world of human - world interactions will require humans in the loop for translation and verification purposes.

I really don't see why that would necessarily be true. Any task that can be done by a human with a keyboard and a telephone is at risk of being done by an AI - and that includes the task of "translation and verification".

[pegasus]

Sure, but at the risk of running into completely unforeseen and potentially catastrophic misunderstandings. We humans are wired to use human language to interact with other humans, who share our human experience, which AIs can only imperfectly model.

[pas]

I have to say I don't feel this huge shared experience with many service industry workers. Especially over the phone. We barely speak the same language!

[halfcat]

> Any task that can be done by a human with a keyboard and a telephone

The power doesn’t stay on solely from people with keyboards and phones.

[satvikpendem]

From a human, to a centaur, to a pegasus, as it were.

[Davidzheng]

Sure, but in pure mathematics there are a lot of well specific problems which no one can solve.

[pegasus]

Mathematics is indeed one of those rare fields where intimate knowledge of human nature is not paramount. But even there, I don't expect LLMs to replace top-level researchers. The same evolutionary "baggage" which makes simulating and automating humans away impossible is also what enables (some of) us to have the deep insight into the most abstract regions of maths. In the end it all relies on the same skills developed through millions of years of tuning into the subtleties of 3D geometry, physics, psychology and so on.

[direwolf20]

How is chess not fully specified?

[Brian_K_White]

They said chess was an example of something that is fully specified.

[awesome_dude]

I'm guessing that they were referring to the depth of the decision tree able to be computed in a given amount of time?

In essence, it used to be (I have not stayed current) that the "AI" was limited on how many moves into the future it could use to determine which move was most optimal.

That limit means that it is impossible to determine all the possible moves and which is guaranteed to lead to a win. (The "best" than can be done is to have a Machine Learning algorithm choose the most likely set of moves that a human would take from the current state, and which of that set would most likely lead to a win.