[opto]

I mean only that I see no use for it myself, in my own work. I'm sure there are people working in roles around me who believe they get some use out of AI doing their work for them, and they will have to answer to auditors when they find problems with their work, or when someone is killed.

To me, as a non-techie person, it feels as if people who work in software believe that because their work can be done by AI, everyone else's can, too. Or that this would be better, simply because it proposes a technological solution to human work — it is taken as read that a solution which uses cool sounding computers and data farms is better than one done by humans with a pen and a pad and life experience. They don't have to justify this belief, because the money is on their side.

[hug]

I don't mean to tar you with a too-wide brush, and I feel like you have a good handle on your personal acceptance for LLM assistance. No complaint there.

I do think, maybe alternative to your view, that LLMs can provide useful feedback to graduate-level employees in most fields.

It is not that the work can be done by LLMs -- we're not there, yet, in software or otherwise -- but that LLMs as useful tutors specifically in regard to denouncing known bad ideas is largely applicable all over.

What I mean by the above is that I have yet to find a truly interesting idea spun from whole cloth by an LLM. They're mediocre at it. They're trained from the aggregate thoughts of those in every industry, and you and I both know that the aggregate of the industry is, generally, mediocre.

Conversely, though, is the hit: They won't be worse than mediocre. An indefatigable tutor who gives no great advice but will counsel you against blowing yourself up (or cutting a limb off with a rope, or falling overboard) is, to me, worth an amount.

The failure modes will get better, the advice will get better. Are we there, now? Unsure. You can tell us all better.

On the ten year horizon, I'd place a bet, though.

[opto]

What does that really mean though — ten more years of data centers exploiting local communities for their resources will mean that a computer might be able to teach people to tie knots, and reliably check their work... No government would allow that to certify someone, and no company would risk the lawsuit when someone dies doing what the AI tells them, so it's a non-starter. Even if it were possible, and governments got on board with certifying training like that, would anyone think this was better than what we have now?

What are the likely use cases in my industry then? That AI is used to bodge the important paperwork that protects lives; is used to draft legislation; is used by both employees and management to do things like personal development reports.

Is anyone meant to be impressed? Is this worth communities having their water stolen from them?

I appreciate I am skeptical, but it is hard not to be when the world spends all day telling you a piece of technology is going to fundamentally change the world, and in real life you only see people use it to blag CVs, personal reports, and lesson planning.

[bradley13]

> "What does that really mean though — ten more years of data centers exploiting local communities for their resources"

That is purest hyperbole. Data centers use a lot of electricity, but they are hardly looting local communities. The water issue is wildly exaggerated, unless a data center is located in a desert, because most water is recirculated.

And why do you think no one will allow an AI to certify someone on certain topics. Their knowledge at the moment is roughly the average of people in the field. Is an average person in your field not able to certify others? In any case, AIs are improving very rapidly, so what is not possible today will be possible tomorrow.

As an example, let me point out the Tesla FSD. On a per-mile basis, self-driving Teslas have a massively lower accident rate (less than 20%) than human-driven vehicles. That is a very physical activity being handled by an AI.