zlacker

>>xnx+(OP)
I do some electrical drafting work for construction and throw basic tasks at LLMs.

I gave it a shitty harness and it almost 1 shotted laying out outlets in a room based on a shitty pdf. I think if I gave it better control it could do a huge portion of my coworkers jobs very soon

>>knolli+9P
"AI could never replace the creativity of a human"

"Ok, I guess it could wipe out the economic demand for digital art, but it could never do all the autonomous tasks of a project manager"

"Ok, I guess it could automate most of that away but there will always be a need for a human engineer to steer it and deal with the nuances of code"

"Ok, well it could never automate blue collar work, how is it gonna wrench a pipe it doesn't have hands"

The goalposts will continue to move until we have no idea if the comments are real anymore.

Remember when the Turing test was a thing? No one seems to remember it was considered serious in 2020

>>reduce+d51
I still haven't witnessed a serious attempt at passing the Turing test. Are we just assuming its been beaten, or have people tried?

Like if you put someone in an online chat and ask them to identify if the person they're talking to is a bot or not, you're telling me your average joe honestly can't tell?

A blog post or a random HN comment, sure, it can be hard to tell, but if you allow some back and forth.. i think we can still sniff out the AIs.

>>8n4vid+o32
A couple of months ago I saw a paper (can't remember if published or just on arxiv) in which Turing's original 3-player Imitation Game was played with a human interrogator trying to discern which of a human responder and an LLM was the human. When the LLM was a recent ChatGPT version, the human interrogator guessed it to be the human over 70% of the time; when the LLM was weaker (I think Llama 2), the human interrogator guessed it to be the human something like 54% of the time.

IOW, LLMs pass the Turing test.