Post #1991808

@arclight I think it's the classic case of management thinking that all the effort in planning changes is spent on working out which buttons to press, rather than applying specific domain knowledge, experience and researching and testing the process. Sure an LLM can generate a simulacra of a change plan, including a bunch of steps to achieve the goal, but without peer review, a risk assessment and full back out plan, you're just going on hope and a prayer. The most stupid thing about the article was that the guy asked the LLM to explain itself, as if it was capable of having done anything other than spat out a Markov chain style output of what looked like a likely answer. It did not review what it had done. It was not contrite in the face of a fuckup. It just rolled the dice again and spat out what the prompter wanted to hear. I can't believe people are so taken in but this rubbish. As you say, it's essentially lack of control and blind faith in flawed tools with no technical oversight. Pretty much akin to running a script you found on the internet in a live environment without reading through to see what it does. People who do this basically deserve what they get.