this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
46 points (88.3% liked)
Futurology
1840 readers
358 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wonder how that compares to the average human?
Not a very good, or easy comparison to make. Against the average, sure, the AI is above the average. But a domain expert like a doctor or an accountant is way much more accurate than that. In the 99+% range. Sure, everyone makes mistakes. But when we are good at something, we are really good.
Anyways this is just a ridiculous amount of effort and energy wasted just to reduce hallucinations to 4.4%.
Actually, not so.
If the AI is trained on narrow data sets, then it beats humans. There's quite a few examples of this recently with different types of medical expertise.
Cool, where are the papers?
"We just need to drain a couple of lakes more and I promise bro you'll see the papers."
I work in the field and I've seen tons of programs dedicated to use AI on healthcare and except for data analytics (data science) or computer image, everything ends in a nothing-burger with cheese that someone can put on their website and call the press.
LLMs are not good for decision making (and unless there is a real paradigm shift) they won't ever be due to their statistical nature.
The biggest pitfall we have right now is that LLMs are super expensive to train and maintain as a service and companies are pushing them hard promising future features that, by most of the research community they won't ever reach (as they have plateaued): Will we run out of data? Limits of LLM scaling based on human-generated data Large Language Models: a Survey (2024) No "Zero-Shot" Without Exponential Data: Pretraining Concept Frequency Determines Multimodal Model Performance
And for those that don't want to read papers on a weekend, there was a nice episode of computerphile 'ere: https://youtu.be/dDUC-LqVrPU
</end of rant>
Large language models surpass human experts in predicting neuroscience results
A small study found ChatGPT outdid human physicians when assessing medical case histories, even when those doctors were using a chatbot.
Are you kidding me? How did NYT reach those conclusions when the chair flipping conclusions of said study quite clearly states that [sic]"The use of an LLM did not significantly enhance diagnostic reasoning performance compared with the availability of only conventional resources."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2825395
I mean, c'mon!
On the Nature one:
"we constructed a new forward-looking (Fig. 2) benchmark, BrainBench."
and
"Instead, our analyses suggested that LLMs discovered the fundamental patterns that underlie neuroscience studies, which enabled LLMs to predict the outcomes of studies that were novel to them."
and
"We found that LLMs outperform human experts on BrainBench"
Is in reality saying: we made this benchmark that LLMs know how to cheat around our benchmark better than experts do, nothing more, nothing else.
Specialized ML models yes, not LLMs to my knowledge, but happy to be proved wrong.
It's also notable that human error tends to occur in predictable ways which can be prepared for and noticed much more easily, while machine errors tend to be entirely random and unpredictable. For example: When a human makes a judgment on a medical issue which poses a very significant risk to the patient, they will generally put more effort into ensuring an accurate result/pay more attention to what they're doing.
I would not accept a calculator being wrong even 1% of the time.
AI should be held to a higher standard than "it's on average correct more often than a human".