[bluefirebrand]

It's a clear illustration that these systems are not oracles. No matter how much they've improved since then, we should assume they are still capable of making hilariously big mistakes. Only now the obvious mistakes are fixed and the big mistakes will be a lot more subtle and a lot harder to catch.

[throw310822]

> It's a clear illustration that these systems are not oracles.

Of course they are not oracles. Oracles belong to magic, these things are real.

I really can't understand how people seem to expect "intelligence" to be deterministic and infallible and uniform across domains when all examples we have of it (that is, us) are anything but.

[bluefirebrand]

> I really can't understand how people seem to expect "intelligence" to be deterministic and infallible

We don't really expect this of intelligence

We do sort of expect this of machines

Most people in society use machines and computers expecting very deterministic behavior, within some constraints. A saw cuts wood as long as your blade isn't dull. A computer shows your emails as long as the power and Internet is not out.

Comparably Unconstrained computer AI systems are still extremely new and there is no social norms or expectations around it yet

[jurgenburgen]

> I really can't understand how people seem to expect "intelligence" to be deterministic and infallible and uniform across domains when all examples we have of it (that is, us) are anything but.

I’m sure there are people who think putting glue on a pizza is acceptable but we’re not hiring them to bake pizzas for us.

When I search and get an AI summary it’s either correct or useless. I don’t care how fallible humans are, I’m not asking them to summarize my Google results.

[throw310822]

So you never go to a doctor because (being human and therefore fallible) they might give you wrong information?