That's because testing is a layer above, and that requires effort from people, and people don't want to put in the effort or lack the skills to properly test with them. I think LLMs are superb at testing, but I have a lot of machinery in front of them to enable it
They're not good at testing things that require a high visual frame rate (i.e animations), high fidelity (small details), or are out of the normal distribution of things they've seen in the past (without comprehensive prompting)
The only underlying rule that I see is: the more complex a task is, the lower the probability of success. That's it. And it's the same exact rule that applies to humans. The difference though is that we're seeing an exponential growth in AI capabilities, which are then rapidly disseminated on a scale of months, and we don't see such capability increases in humans.
As I see it, anyone whose mental model is built on what AI can or cannot do is going to have a very bumpy decade.
I don't get it. How is knowing that AI itself will not take responsibility or that it will not indemnify its users make your decade any better? Is your line of reasoning that using AI will very likely prove to be a bad idea in the long term and thus perfectly rational people with the same priors as yours will abstain from training or utilizing AI?
I am saying that AI cannot take responsibility. My line of reasoning assumes that you understand that responsibility/accountability is a crucial element in offering products and services in society.
Although software companies like to disclaim all warranties to the extent the law allows, neither the market nor the FTC will allow you to breach contracts, make outrageous false claims, or offer products that destroy life and property.
AI cannot and will not behave responsibly. I’m not opposed to AI, but I use it as a tool that I supervise. I review and test what it produces. People and companies that fail to do that will ruin their reputations, I predict.