[Dylan16807]

> precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool

That only works if they're experienced with model(s) of that level of unreliability and this is presented as one.

If they're used to a model that's more capable, and think the test model is similar, that's a huge confounding factor all by itself. It's not quite like giving fake credentials to a guy off the street and presenting them as an expert, but it's largely similar.

[beepbooptheory]

Just really really missing the point here in a kind of revealing way.. You probably have access to some really reliable models if I had to guess!

[Dylan16807]

I've never used AI except for sometimes getting distracted by google search's builtin wrongness factory. So whatever "revealing" you think you found is completely imaginary. Rethink your assumptions here.

So please make an actual argument. How am I missing the point? It's true that someone trusting the AI in this test is not practicing "sensible delegation to a reliable tool". But what actually matters is whether they are practicing "sensible delegation" full stop. There's a big difference between "the subject inappropriately trusts AI in general" and "the specific test setup deceived the subjects". In the latter case, the attempt to remove the "sensible delegation" factor failed.

Edit: And any argument that uses "any LLM they would normally use is unreliable" as a basis is begging the question. If you can just assert that then you don't need to do anything to disprove sensible delegation. But if you can't assert it, the proof doesn't work right. So either the proof is pointless or it's insufficient.

[beepbooptheory]

The article, and the paper it references, is not an argument or "proof" of anything. This is not a theorem. The point is, given access to the same relative information as anything, there is (supposedly) a greater trust, there is less I-dont-knows with something in the form of a chatbot vs something else.

Whatever you're bias is or not here, the point you are missing is this is not about any given AI, or even about any given AIs "reliability" or not. It's not even, really, about "delegation" itself. It's just studying the supposed correlation here between uncertainty and one certain form of a tool.

There is no damning, sweeping thing to argue for here, this is not an editorial or an opinion, and does not purport to even be some big finding I would say. It's a pop sci article about a study done by (I presume) sociologists.

So yes, I would either way say you missed the point here.

[Dylan16807]

> The article, and the paper it references, is not an argument or "proof" of anything. This is not a theorem. The point is, given access to the same relative information as anything, there is (supposedly) a greater trust, there is less I-dont-knows with something in the form of a chatbot vs something else.

...Are you saying there is a difference between an "argument" and a "point"? And you accuse me of missing what people are saying..

Okay, they were making a point about how people delegate. They wanted to remove a confounding factor "so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool." But because of how people judge things, they failed to remove that factor, and possibly made it worse.

> It's not even, really, about "delegation" itself. It's just studying the supposed correlation here between uncertainty and one certain form of a tool.

But they decided they cared about removing the "sensible delegation" explanation. I'm not imposing on that on them. They thought it was important to remove, and they did something that doesn't remove it at all.

[beepbooptheory]

I mean yeah.. An argument is typically something pretty different from a "point"... Idk why that seems so crazy? If I do an experiment, I would never say I am arguing something. I wouldn't even say I was making the point. I was, despite its seeming futility now, trying to make a point about the article to you. It seems willfully misread to take my last post in any other way.

As for the experiment itself, this takes like two minutes to look up:

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5y6m4_v1

There is literally no delegation in the way (I think) you are meaning, there is the contrived presentation of different tools for different control groups.

Also, like I don't know why you are talking like I did this experiment? I just read it, I am not over here trying to argue for anything other than common sense and the ability to understand what the researchers were doing using even a oz of intellectual charity. Is that, too, impossible now? Where is the freaking fire?

[Dylan16807]

> I mean yeah.. An argument is typically something pretty different from a "point"... Idk why that seems so crazy?

Because it feels like you aren't even trying to understand me if such a tiny wording difference makes you skip over what I'm actually saying.

> I wouldn't even say I was making the point.

I know! You quoted them, and I took issue with a thing in the quote!

> I was, despite its seeming futility now, trying to make a point about the article to you. It seems willfully misread to take my last post in any other way.

I can see you saying things about the article, but I'm not disagreeing with you (except to the extent that you're defending the paper), I'm disagreeing with the authors.

> I don't know why you are talking like I did this experiment?

I don't know what I said to gave you that impression. I keep pointing at the line you quoted when I explain my complaint.

My first post in this thread didn't include a single word of yours. It was only the quote.

> There is literally no delegation in the way (I think) you are meaning, there is the contrived presentation of different tools for different control groups.

Forget what you think I mean. Forget what words I used.

They said "precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool". They were trying to make a particular explanation impossible here. That's what I'm referring to.

They wanted to avoid that explanation, and I'm saying they failed to avoid it, possibly even backfired and did the opposite of that.

There's no point in nitpicking the words I use to try to refer to that sentence. Pretend I'm just drawing a big arrow pointing at that sentence.

> I am not over here trying to argue for anything other than common sense and the ability to understand what the researchers were doing using even a oz of intellectual charity.

I'm also arguing for common sense and understanding what they were doing. And I'm saying that in this specific aspect of what they were doing, it didn't work.

I'm not judging the entire experiment here, just that one aspect.

> Is that, too, impossible now? Where is the freaking fire?

Is me insisting I see one flaw acting like there's a "fire"? I don't think so.