Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study

• jsomae@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Are you just trolling or do you seriously not understand how something which can do a task correctly with 30% reliability can be made useful if the result can be automatically verified.

  source

  • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Its not a magical 30%, factors apply. It’s not even a mind that thinks and just isnt very good.

    This isnt like a magical dice that gives you truth on a 5 or a 6, and lies on 1,2,3,7, and for.

    This is a (very complicated very large) language or other data graph that programmatically identifies an average. 30% of the time. Which means the more possible that is, the easier it is to either use a simpler cheaper tool that will give you a better more reliable answer much faster.

    And 20 tons of human shit has uses! If you know its providence, there’s all sorts of population level public health surveillance you can do to get ahead of disease trends! Its also got some good agricultural stuff in it-phosphorous and stuff, if you can extract it.

    source

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I think everyone in the universe is aware of how LLMs work by now, you don’t need to explain it to someone just because they think LLMs are more useful than you do.

      IDK what you mean by glazing but if by “glaze” you mean “understanding the potential threat of AI to society instead of hiding under a rock and pretending it’s as useless as a plastic radio,” then no, I won’t stop.

      source

      • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        It’s absolutely dangerous but it doesnt have to work even a little to do damage; hell, it already has. Your thing just makes it sound much more capable than it is. And it is not.

        Also, it’s not AI.

        source

        • -> View More Comments