[zby]

If you have a test that fails 50% times - is that test valuable or not? A 50% failure rate alone looks like a coin toss, but by itself that does not tell us whether the test is noise or whether it is separating bad states from good ones. For a test to be useful it needs to have positive Youden’s statistic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youden%27s_J_statistic): sensitivity + specificity - 1. A 50% failure rate alone does not let us calculate sensitivity and specificity.

I can see a similar problem with this article - the author notices that LLMs produce a lot of errors - then concludes that they are useless and produce only simulacrum of work. The author has an interesting observation about how llms disrupt the way we judge knowledge work. But when he concludes that llms do only simulacrum of work - this is where his arguments fail.

[card_zero]

Gee, a thing by a guy, with a name. What are you saying exactly? So the test in question is a test the LLM is asked to carry out, right? Then your point is that if it's a load of vacuous flannel 49% of the time, but meaningful 51% of the time, on average this is genuine work so we can't complain about the 49%?

Wait, you're probably talking about the test of discarding a report based on something superficial like spelling errors. Which fails with LLMs due to their basic conman personalities and smooth talking. And therefore ..?

[jszymborski]

> For a test to be useful it needs to have positive Youden’s statistic

This is not true as stated. I'd try to gloss over the absolutes relative to the context, but if I'm totally honest, I'm not sure I understand what idea you're trying to communicate.