https://siliconreckoner.substack.com/p/terence-tao-on-machin...

To me it seems like people who are confident in their expertise generally find it useful, even if it's imperfect

Ok, maybe a few of them are fine people who have too much money, but the vast majority of them are in their position because they were willing to siphon money from lower classes using unethical means. Of all of the competitive advantages you can claim, the "no moral scruples" one is the most persistent.

"Hey Siri, what's the weather in tomorrow" and it gave me a town with the same name ~800 miles from me.

You don't have to do this? Maybe someone is making you, but it's literally possible to just stop using LLMs for purposes where they fail reliably.

I'm also not sure what the point of the keto story is. Are you saying the Polio Vaccine does not work?

I think most people will come around to this way of thinking once the pro-LLMers stop pretending like the statistics don't exist too (i.e. that ML is the solution to any problem, despite how unreliable it is).

I'm generally in agreement, but I think current corporate/productivity culture and AI is a bad mix that makes this quote/sentiment feel impossible. All of the current incentives are set up to push out as much sloppy code as possible, and AI is the perfect machine for doing that in huge quantities, to the point where reviewing all of it is impossible. It's not really AI's fault (imo). There's plenty of ways to use it to design more elegant, understandable, maintainable systems. But unfortunately that's going to take a cultural shift, and part of that cultural shift involves people pushing back against AI as it's used today.