This post misses a very important point: humans aren't 100% correct either. This means that the bar for being useful (at tasks that humans usually do) isn't perfection, it's human-level correctness. If we can create AI models that make fewer mistakes than humans (which is almost certainly possible, even if not easily or soon), then we will actually need to spend less time double-checking for correctness than we do now.

> We see it with self-driving cars. It's really impressive what is possible. But they aren't true self-driving. A person needs to be sitting at the wheel, keeping their attention focussed on traffic as if they would be driving themselves, so they can intervene when the AI makes an inevitable mistake.

There are self-driving cars all over San Fransisco transporting people on public roads with no human at the wheel. This proves my point: those cars are not perfect, but they are human-level (or close), and that's all that's needed.

About the - humans aren't accurate either - 'argument'. Why replace people with something objectively worse and more unpredictable?

> Imagine that a systems can't be trusted. That 1+1 isn't always 2. Only 99% of the time.

Easy to imagine. Every human being is such a system- correct very often (but never 100% of the times) in certain domains, tragically wrong in others. Like this guy thinking that "AI hype can't sustain itself", with an argument that makes no sense at all. LLMs don't replace computers and algorithms, they replace human beings. They just need to be more correct than humans in several domains, not infallible. Or even slightly less correct, but substantially cheaper.