Hacker News Reader

Comment by pu_pe | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand your argument here. All these scenarios you mentioned are testable. If the rate of accidents of autopilot + AI is lower than for human pilots, yes I would fly with them. Same with self driving cars, which have already achieved that.

AI is not error-free and it doesn't have to be. It has to have the same or lower error rate as humans.

View on HN

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to exercise my brain. :)

- re: testability, clearly you haven't worked deeply with AI. AI makes unpredictable mistakes. Can you test those? You can't.

- If y then x is not a real argument. You're saying [if x] but x can never be true. So that's a fallacious standpoint.

- LLMs don't 'reason'. They're just using sophisticated pattern-matching. Human error rate will never be beaten, as far as the tasks involve unpredictability (so something like chess is predictable). -

Your premise about predictability is wrong. First of all, humans are also unpredictable. We just had a case where two pilots started a brawl in the cabin and almost took the airplane down with them. Second, and most importantly, the code generated by LLMs is just as deterministic as the ones by humans. So if you think we can reasonably test code made by humans, then we can also test code made by AI, regardless of whether its writer is deterministic in nature or not (ie, "predictable").

Human error rates have already been beaten, even in precisely the domains we are discussing here. Just look at safety data from Waymo for example [1].

[1] https://waymo.com/safety/impact/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com