[ChrisMarshallNY]

> AI output is not getting vetted by knowledgeable people

You mean the people they fired and demoralized?

One of the things that "great [wo]men" like about "vibe-coding" (and that includes blindly producing non-code product), is that they, and they alone can now do what used to require the painful process of "passing it to context experts."

Now, the LLM is a "built-in context expert," and they don't need to vet the output anymore.

[ilamont]

> Now, the LLM is a "built-in context expert," and they don't need to vet the output anymore.

Serious orgs are going to have to figure out the human layer. It will be needed, no matter how 'hallucination-free' the AI tooling gets. AI will still have some spectacularly bad fuck ups or even worse time bombs that get embedded in a system and don't become apparent until months or years later.

A lot of this will be dumped on existing staff with predictable results as they don't have the bandwidth to do it right. I can envision "output compliance" or "AI QA" becoming dedicated positions at many orgs. It's clearly needed.

[anal_reactor]

> It's clearly needed.

Once the hallucination rate drops below error rate of human workers, it won't be needed anymore.

[cassianoleal]

Once the hallucination rate drops, the remaining LLM failures will become increasingly harder to spot.

[asdff]

Let's be honest, how many orgs are really serious? Playing the game of the day for shareholder appeasement is taken far more seriously than whatever the domain experts might think.