Replying to @⁨return2ozma@lemmy.world⁩

I can understand why this technology would be particularly addicting to hank.

His whole persona is answering questions like “what color flower do bees like the most” with the kind of enthusiasm that shows his curiosity and deep passion for science. So a machine where you can put in those sorts of questions and get an almost instant answer would be very addicting.

Replying to an earlier post

This is the thing about LLMs and their users I genuinely don’t get. Like, objectively, being able to input plain speech into a computer and get an almost immediate, detailed, 95% accurate answer is incredible. Genuine technological marvel.

But 95% accuracy is functionally useless for all but the most basic, unimportant tasks. Outside of a coding context (a big exception, to be clear), are people really satisfied with that?

Replying to @⁨soratoyuki@piefed.zip⁩

The majority of human history at all levels of science, philosophy, and mathematics. The best you could ever hope for was 95%. Hell you were lucky to break 90% accuracy.

Because the only people you could ask questions was the people in the room with you right then and there or the people you could actively physically go ask.

If you were extremely lucky you could write to someone who MIGHT know more. Or may there’s a book about it that someone knows exists.

95% can and frequently is very much over kill for almost everything anyone will need for their day to day life for random trivia or even most important work.

Very few fields need more than that, and few still is it a matter of life or death.

The part that people fuck up is not being open to learning more and being corrected.

en