• lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 hours ago

    True! I’m an AI researcher and using an AI agent to check the work of another agent does improve accuracy! I could see things becoming more and more like this, with teams of agents creating, reviewing, and approving. If you use GitHub copilot agent mode though, it involves constant user interaction before anything is actually run. And I imagine (and can testify as someone that has installed different ML algorithms/tools on government hardware) that the operators/decision makers want to check the work, or understand the “thought process” before committing to an action.

    Will this be true forever as people become more used to AI as a tool? Probably not.

        • dzsimbo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          You either deliberately or accidentally misinterpreted the joke. I kinda connect the “woosh” to the adult animation show Archer, but I might be conflating it due them emerging around the same time.

          • lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Oh no, I mean could you explain the joke? I believe I get the joke (shitty AI will replace experts). I was just leaving a comment about how systems that use LLMs to check the work of other LLMs do better than if they don’t. And that when I’ve introduced AI systems to stakeholders with consequential decision making, they tend to want a human in the loop. While also saying that this will probably change over time as AI systems get better and we get more used to using them. Is that a good thing? It will have to be on a case by case basis.