[war-is-peace]

> What's scary isn't that these models are so good they'll replace us, but that despite how limited they are, someone will make the decision to replace humans anyway.

is this a real threat? if a system/company decides to replace a human with something that is less capable wouldn't that just result in it becoming irrelevant/bankrupt as it is replaced by other companies doing the same thing the more efficient (and in this case traditional) way?

[jdietrich]

Has any company ever truly believed that outsourcing their customer service to India would improve the experience for their customers? No, but they did it anyway, because it cut costs. AI can be obviously worse than humans and still put them out of work, because GPUs are much cheaper than people.

[IanCal]

Capability and efficiency are very different things.

Consumers will absolutely buy worse buy cheaper products/services.

[ed-209]

Not necessarily. Imagine a health insurance provider even partially automating their claim (dis)approval process - it could be both lucrative and devastating.

[haswell]

Adding to this, government use cases would be most likely to cause issues because they’re often relevant regardless of how badly they suck.

There are already active discussions about AI being used in government for “efficiency” reasons.

[war-is-peace]

worse for the consumer or the provider? if the llm is going to fundamentally do a "worse" job no matter what the incentive (whatever that is, maximising profit, maximising claims, whatever that may be) we will end up with the "more efficient" system in charge

the counterpoint to this (which i guess is the tenet of the original comment?) is that hype can shadow good judgement for a short period of time?

[philjohn]

Already happened. With predictable results.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y7QPXzDmloI?embeds_referring_...