top | item 44296806

(no title)

greekanalyst | 8 months ago

"...the LLM group's participants performed worse than their counterparts in the Brain-only group at all levels: neural, linguistic, scoring."

That's not surprising but also bleak.

discuss

order

fhd2|8 months ago

Appears to align with good old Ironies of Automation [1]. If humans just review and rubber stamp results, they do a pretty terrible job at it.

I've been thinking for a while now that in order to truly make augmented workflows work, the mode of engagement is central. Reviewing LLM code? Bah. Having an LLM watch over my changes and give feedback? Different story. It's probably gonna be difficult and not particularly popular, but if we don't stay in the driver's seat somehow, I guess things will get pretty bleak.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation

tuatoru|8 months ago

Didn't realise the pedigree of the idea went back to 1983.

I read about this in a book "Our Robots, Ourselves". That talked about airline pilots' experience with auto-land systems introduced in the late 1990s/ early 2000s.

As you'd expect after having read Ironies of Automation, after a few near misses and not misses, auto-land is not used any more. Instead, pilot augmentation with head-up displays is used.

What is the programming equivalent of a head-up display?

pantalaimon|8 months ago

> We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program! Our Jihad is a "dump program." We dump the things which destroy us as humans!

https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad