points by jacquesm 1 day ago | 0 comments
This is not that much different in programming, it just takes longer to find out.
Using AI is like using adaptive cruise control: you're still in charge of where the vehicle will ultimately end up and if you decide to go take a nap you will wake up in the hospital or end up in the morgue.
It's true though that the 'time between interventions' is lengthening steadily.
[–] slg 1 day ago
[–] WillPostForFood 1 day ago
It is more that knowledge workers are less sophisticated at using AI. It is not that hard to check whether sources are real, using AI or other tools, for example. Something like functional testing will come to non programming tasks.
[–] Retric 1 day ago
Consistently catching errors is vastly harder when you’re not the one doing the legwork. Send the wrong file, do a bad copy and paste, or skip one verification step, etc is all it takes for most people to majorly mess up.
For most professionals it’s just safer to avoid having output in your workflow. Keep using AI, but stop copying and pasting AI output.
[–] eluru 1 day ago
i wonder why dont we have a better pipeline for research.
for example ask opus to do some research, then have some hook configured with Haiku, JEV, anything that makes more sense really, only job is ti check the sources are real.
you can keep adding into this, of course it can get too big, of course it will still fail, but it will still be much better than the current state of things.
It seems to be a low hanging fruit with a huge value that no one has taken.
[–] EA-3167 1 day ago
The major difference is that people routinely ship shoddy, broken products in the world of software with few consequences, beyond needing to patch it later. Try the same thing with a court filing and you’re out on your ass.
[–] infamouscow 1 day ago
This was true before AI too.
In practice, lawyers generally don't ever disbarred except if they lie to clients or steal from them.
[–] echelon 1 day ago
We're still early in AI.
All of this will sort itself out and eventually bio, legal, software will all just work.
Don't hold onto any single assumption about the world. Things are going to be weird.
[–] dTal 1 day ago
Well hang on, "just work" implies an objective standard of correct vs incorrect. No such standard exists. I'm sure that there will be legal AIs that reliably do... something... but the whole point of the legal system is to allow space for humans to argue their case. If an AI "does legal" deterministically, without human intervention, how can it be said to be "working" if its very use defeats the purpose of the system it has learned to navigate so expertly?
The primary difference is that it's much easier for the AI to figure out itself if it's wrong on the programming side. Knowledge workers don't have automated testing for example.
The end result is the knowledge worker needs to be more heavily involved in the process and be more mindful of mistakes which makes it a worse experience for the user and generally less productive than it is for programmers.