[slopinthebag]

> But also -- how do humans do it?

Probably a mix of critical thinking, thinking from first principles, etc. You know, all things that LLM's are not capable of.

[jacobr1]

Except it often is the case that when you break down what humans are doing, there are actual concrete tasks. If you can convert the tacit knowledge to decision trees and background references, you likely can get the AI to perform most non-creative tasks.

[slopinthebag]

If you have to hold the LLM's hand to accomplish a task, using human intelligence to do so, you can't consider the task performed by AI.

[jacobr1]

I half agree. But two points: 1) if you can formalize your instructions ... then future instances can be fully automated. 2) You are still probably having the AI perform many sub-tasks. AI-skeptics regularly fall into this god-of-the-gaps trap. You aren't wrong that human-augmented AI isn't 100% AI ... but it still is AI-augmentation, and again, that sets the stage for point 1 - to enable later future full automation on long enough timecycles.

[skydhash]

> if you can formalize your instructions

Isn't that...code?

[deaux]

No. Think of all engineering disciplines that aren't software. Those all depend on human-language formal instructions.

[okanat]

Formal instructions paired by tables are almost as rigid as code. Btw normal engineering disciplines have a lot of strict math and formulas. Neither electrical nor mechanical engineering runs on purely instructions.

[ThrowawayR2]

The non-software engineering disciplines I'm thinking of rely on blueprints, schematics, diagrams, HDLs, and tables much more than human language formal instructions. More so than software engineering.