Post #2856797

2026-05-18 14:52 UTC

that the technology is more or less sticking the landing Only in competent hands, because everything it generates has to be validated manually. My office uses Copilot, and every competent worker involved in complex projects hates it and only uses it for trivial things, like generating an email response, which you then have to read anyway so you might as well type it yourself in the first place. No one uses it for anything meaningful. Human validation is propping up the perception of LLM’s. One cannot trust this technology to do anything overly consequential or precise. It’s like how Theranos’ Edison system could perform maybe four types of blood tests correctly, but the extravagant promises, lies, and outright fraud about the product were contrary to Elizabeth Holmes’ grandiose claims. We’re only a few years away from similar documentaries about Sam Altman, and if you read the recent Ronan Farrow article about him, maybe not even years.

Replies (2)

@MangoCats@feddit.it 2026-05-18 16:51

Only in competent hands, because everything it generates has to be validated manually. Same can be said for the output of most interns, and even more senior employees. This is why we have “Quality Systems” safety audits, design controls, and the rest of the regulations which basically set us all up checking each others’ work all day long. No AI required, these systems were shown to improve both safety AND efficiency of industry back in the 1980s, which is why they were rolled out as law for industries like aviation, medical, automotive and finance in the 1990s long before anyone would have claimed that AI of the day was doing anything. The reason studies say those “measure twice cut once” practices increase efficiency is because mistakes are expensive, extremely expensive when you get to problems like Boeing has, it’s not just the lives lost or cost of crash damage/loss, it’s the reputational impact to the company, public perception diminishing the real value of their products. ALL those same quality practices apply to AI. People are complaining because AI output is so much faster than people output, leaving people holding the review bag, but… newsflash: AI does quality review too. Imperfectly, incompletely, just like people, except AI does the quality reviews much faster than people. Will AI as author, editor, publisher and critic work? Maybe not as a complete closed loop system today, but the individual functions of AI acting within those systems have all improved dramatically in the past 12 months. What hasn’t changed? The broad public’s perceptions and growing anxiety. Justifiable concerns about how the powerful owners/directors of AI companies will abuse their influence.

Open ##2856796
@zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2026-05-19 14:14

> every competent worker involved in complex projects hates it and only uses it for trivial things, like generating an email response, which you then have to read anyway so you might as well type it yourself in the first place. Hard disagree. Reading bullshit is painful, but writing it is torture.

Open ##3103602