Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaynetics | Hacker News Reader

Humans are also non-deterministic, for all practical purposes, and the more of them you need to build some piece of software, the harder it can get to keep the likelihood of issues low.

I'm not saying it will happen, but at least it's not inconceivable that LLMs could surpass them in this calculation more and more often.

View on HN

The quality of discussion here is not up to the standards I would want it to be.

What are you even saying there. "Humans are also not perfect, so anything is possible" but painted with a coat of fake intellectualism.

What a waste of time.

So, do you have a counter-argument? Anything that humans can do that goes beyond "pushing probabilities higher"?

It is my belief that a prerequisite to a counter-argument is an argument.

My interpretation of the argument is "Humans are also non-deterministic, but we make organizations work on a daily basis despite that. We could do the same with LLMs, which may in fact turn out to be less non-deterministic than humans."

This article by Charles Stross (from 2018, hence long before LLMs) makes the case that corporations are an old, slow form of AI: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-yo...

I agree with both takes; organizations have evolved many error-correcting mechanisms like bureaucracy, laws and contracts to keep a gaggle of non-deterministic actors behaving deterministically. There is no reason those actors need to be human.

why do you think that something being non deterministic means it can't be better than humans at a task? hasn't this same approach been used when developing alpha go which has surpassed humans?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com