being able to do 30% of tasks successfully is already useful.
If you have a good testing program, it can be.
If you use AI to write the test cases…? I wouldn’t fly on that airplane.
Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study
jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
I’d just like to point out that, from the perspective of somebody watching AI develop for the past 10 years, completing 30% of automated tasks successfully is pretty good! Ten years ago they could not do this at all. Overlooking all the other issues with AI, I think we are all irritated with the AI hype people for saying things like they can be right 100% of the time – Amazon’s new CEO actually said they would be able to achieve 100% this year accuracy lmao. Being able to do 30% of tasks successfully is already useful.
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 day ago
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
obviously
amelia@feddit.org 1 day ago
I think this comment made me finally understand the AI hate circlejerk on lemmy. If you have no clue how LLMs work and you have no idea where “AI” is coming from, it just looks like another crappy product that was thrown on the market half-ready. I guess you can only appreciate the absolutely incredible development of LLMs (and AI in general) that happened during the last ~5 years if you can actually see it in the first place.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
The notion that AI is half-ready is a really poignant observation actually. It’s ready for select applications only, but it’s really being advertised like it’s idiot-proof and ready for general use.
someacnt@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Thing is, they might achieve 99% accuracy given the speed of progress. Lots of brainpower is getting poured into LLMs. Honestly, it is soo scary. It could be replacing me…
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
yeah, this is why I’m #fuck-ai to be honest.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Please stop.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
I’m not claiming that the use of AI is ethical. If you want to fight back you have to take it seriously though.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
It cant do 30% of tasks vorrectly. It can do tasks correctly as much as 30% of the time, and since it’s llm shit you know those numbers have been more massaged than any human in history has ever been.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
I meant the latter, not “it can do 30% of tasks correctly 100% of the time.”
Shayeta@feddit.org 2 days ago
It doesn’t matter if you need a human to review. AI has no way distinguishing between success and failure. Either way a human will have to review 100% of those tasks.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Right, so this is really only useful in cases where either it’s vastly easier to verify an answer than posit one, or if a conventional program can verify the result of the AI’s output.
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 day ago
It’s usually vastly easier to verify an answer than posit one, if you have the patience to do so.
I’m envisioning a world where multiple AI engines create and check each others’ work… the first thing they need to make work to support that scenario is probably fusion power.
zbyte64@awful.systems 1 day ago
I usually write 3x the code to test the code itself. Verification is often harder than implementation.
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 day ago
I have been using AI to write (little, near trivial) programs. It’s blindingly obvious that it could be feeding this code to a compiler and catching its mistakes before giving them to me, but it doesn’t… yet.
wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Agents do that loop pretty well now, and Claude now uses your IDE’s LSP to help it code and catch errors in flow. I think Windsurf or Cursor also do that also.
The tooling has improved a ton in the last 3 months.
Outbound7404@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
A human can review something close to correct a lot better than starting the task from zero.
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It is a lot harder to notice incorrect information in review, than making sure it is correct when writing it.
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 day ago
That depends entirely on your writing method and attention span for review.
Most people make stuff up off the cuff and skim anything longer than 75 words when reviewing, so the bar for AI improving over that is really low.
loonsun@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Depends on the context, there is a lot of work in the scientific methods community trying to use NLP to augment traditionally fully human processes such as thematic analysis and systematic literature reviews and you can have protocols for validation there without 100% human review
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 day ago
In University I knew a lot of students who knew all the things but “just don’t know where to start” - if I gave them a little direction about where to start, they could run it to the finish all on their own.