[andai]

Yeah it's a trick question, the human error rate for it was about 30% (higher depending on the country).

The thing there though is that, if a human were given time to think about it, they'd probably go "hang on a minute", and with the LLMs that didn't seem to happen. They just kept confidently reasoning down the absurd path.

That reminds me, I recently had an AI write a ton of tests proving the "correctness" of a feature it had implemented completely backwards. (I noted that if I had been using a language that required formal proofs, that wouldn't have helped either: it would have just provided a formal proof for the absurd implementation!)

[jacobgold]

> Yeah it's a trick question, the human error rate for it was about 30% (higher depending on the country).

Error rate doesn't prove anything. The nature of the errors is what matters.

[pixl97]

To err is human, it also seems that to err is AI.

[interstice]

Seems like we need to update that other saying - to err is human but to really f** things up you need an AI