> We see it with self-driving cars. It's really impressive what is possible. But they aren't true self-driving. A person needs to be sitting at the wheel, keeping their attention focussed on traffic as if they would be driving themselves, so they can intervene when the AI makes an inevitable mistake.
There are self-driving cars all over San Fransisco transporting people on public roads with no human at the wheel. This proves my point: those cars are not perfect, but they are human-level (or close), and that's all that's needed.
Could be. Machines don't need to provide all the functions of human beings to replace many workers. You can concentrate the supervision and direction function in a single person and assign the rest of the grunt job to machines. You still have replaced most of your human workers.
But even if they were slightly worse and more unpredictable, they are many times faster and cheaper, for some tasks.
Because there is a ton of work that people tend to perform that falls out the scope of that 'some'. And a lot of work requires alignment with other people, and so on. LLMs don't have agency, despite people hyping 'agents'.
throw310822•50m ago
Easy to imagine. Every human being is such a system- correct very often (but never 100% of the times) in certain domains, tragically wrong in others. Like this guy thinking that "AI hype can't sustain itself", with an argument that makes no sense at all. LLMs don't replace computers and algorithms, they replace human beings. They just need to be more correct than humans in several domains, not infallible. Or even slightly less correct, but substantially cheaper.
louwrentius•34m ago
throw310822•18m ago
What LLMs could or couldn't do in 2026 doesn't necessarily say anything about their nature, given that they're a rapidly evolving technology that has made giant progress in the space of a few years.