This argument style is always humorous. The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?”.
> The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?”
If AI really is at human level quality/error rate (I don't think it is for general tasks, but there are some areas where it is), then the answer is typically cost and speed/capacity.
Have outputs from engineers traditionally been measured in cost and speed?
Remember, we aren’t just talking about the product you create. While you would measure deliverables by cost and speed are we ignoring something else? Something that could potentially be more important than either of those metrics?
> Have outputs from engineers traditionally been measured in cost and speed?
Yes. How long it'll take and how much it'll cost are going to be among pretty much any customer's first questions.
They're not the only considerations, and could potentially be outweighed by other concerns even when quality is the same, but I think they are the main drives of AI adoption in industry. If error rate is the same, a $1/hr (amortized) camera and machine vision model capable of checking 300ft of material for defects per minute will likely be preferred to a $10/hr human QA capable of checking 30ft per minute, for instance.
My understanding of your argument is (paraphrasing):
> > People try to excuse AI issues/failure modes by saying humans have them too, but even if they're equally bad then what would be the whole point of replacing a human worker with AI?
To which my response is that speed and cost are also important factors, which can often give AI the edge in considerations when quality/error rate is equal.
If you meant something other than that, you may have to specify.
Speed and cost are nothing without quality and quality is partially a product of accountability (not even considering the technical or logistical issues this is enough on its own.
An AI cannot be held accountable. It does not desire to feed its family.
Your counter argument was outside the context of this articles claims, specifically that programmers and other knowledge workers can be replaced by LLMs.
Equating simple yes/no outcomes generated by vision based machine learning is quite different than “build me a product people will be happy with” being asked of a non-deterministic machine.
The entire purpose of automation is to remove a capacity limited human from a continuous workflow because the workflow is more capably achieved with fewer errors than the human
If I have a choice between a deterministic traffic light and a non-deterministic traffic light which one would I use?
And yes, before you say “this isn’t a comparison of non deterministic and deterministic tools, this is a comparison of two non-deterministic tools” think about what my next question might be.