danrob

This is a common argument to support the usage of LLMs: "Well, humans do it too."

We have many rules, regulations, strategies, patterns, and legions of managers and management philosophy for dealing with humans.

With humans, they're incorrect sometimes, yes, and we actively work around their failures.

We expect humans to develop over time. We expect them to join a profession and give bad answers a lot. As time goes on, we expect them to produce better answers, and if they don't we have remediations to limit the negative impact they have on our business processes. We fire them. We recommend they transfer to a different discipline. We recommend they go to college.

Comparing the successes and failures of LLMs to humans is silly. We would have fired them all by now.

The big difference is that computers CAN get every single question correctly. They ARE better than humans. LLMs are a huge step back from the benefits we got from computers.

Unix had the KISS principle for a reason -- people weren't "keeping it simple, stupid".

In the '10s, everyone was talking about "webscale". VCs noticed that we could write software for hundreds of thousands of occasional users instead of a core group of a few thousand users.

We thought we were making UIs to help people do stuff, but we were really making little feeler apps for vertical integration for corporate interests.

Stuff like big-data and kubernetes looks overcomplicated if you believe the sales pitch. The "tech set" is negotiating for control over business.

Ah, right, "personality attributes", like: - physical attributes - physical activities - electronic devices - colors

The title makes it sound like their Myers Briggs/Enneagram types changed.

You should probably learn.